About Religion

Question:

Pray for the World 4 November 2005 Update From HCJB World Radio Today’s Headlines: UNIDENTIFIED ARSONISTS RAZE LUTHERAN CHURCH IN SUDAN NIGERIAN CATTLEMAN DETAINED, TORTURED AFTER COMING TO CHRIST RUMORS OF EAST TIMOR PASTOR FACING EXECUTION ARE FALSE OPEN DOORS USA LAUNCHES PRAYER CAMPAIGN FOR NORTH KOREA SURVEY: MORE BRITONS BELIEVE IN GHOSTS THAN IN GOD Today’s Top Stories: UNIDENTIFIED ARSONISTS RAZE LUTHERAN CHURCH IN SUDAN More than two weeks after a Lutheran church was torched by unknown arsonists in a Khartoum suburb, Sudan’s newly installed government still has not responded to church leaders requesting an investigation. Most of the simple church structure was "completely burned" shortly after midday on Tuesday, Oct. 18, said Rev. Yousif El-Denger Z. Kodi, general secretary of the Lutheran Church of the Sudan. The El-Thawra branch, one of four Lutheran churches in the city, has a congregation of 150 to 200 worshipers each Sunday. "The first Sunday [after the fire], they just came and worshiped there without any shelter," Kodi said. "We have been there since 1980 worshiping our Lord without any complaining or blaming from any citizens." (Compass) NIGERIAN CATTLEMAN DETAINED, TORTURED AFTER COMING TO CHRIST Religious violence in Nigeria was sparked by a Muslim cutting off a Christian’s hand Wednesday, Oct. 26, in Niger state’s Tungan Rogo village. The incident left three Christians dead and at least 13 others injured. Adams Erena, secretary to the government of Niger state, told journalists that a Muslim Fulani tribesman had taken his cattle onto the farm of a Christian from the Gwari tribe, damaging his crops. When the Christian demanded to know why, the Muslim used a machete to cut off one of his hands. News of the severed hand ignited violence that spread to Tungan Rogo where a policeman, Sgt. Danladi Wasse, was among the Christians who died. The violence also destroyed 18 houses. (Compass Direct) RUMORS OF EAST TIMOR PASTOR FACING EXECUTION ARE FALSE Hundreds of text messages and e-mails were spread across Europe and the U.K. late last month, prompting Christians to pray for Pastor Ferdie Flores of the South Pacific nation of East Timor as he was rumored to be facing execution for preaching the gospel. Some churches held special prayer meetings. The rumors were false, but Flores said he and his family face the real threat of danger as they spread the gospel. On the family’s missionary website, Flores wrote about a terrifying incident on Saturday, Oct. 8, in Laclo when a mob tried to disrupt a Bible study. "A mob appeared from every direction coming towards us," he said. "As the mob [came] closer I [sat] calmly and some hot tempered, furious catechists started to ask intimidating, long and tedious questions. . . . The believers later told me that they already heard the rumor that some notorious fanatics are planning to beat me." The website confirmed that the rumors of his impending death were not accurate. (Assist News Service) OPEN DOORS USA LAUNCHES PRAYER CAMPAIGN FOR NORTH KOREA Open Doors USA has launched a Prayer Campaign for North Korea, a country that for three straight years has topped Open Doors’ World Watch List of countries where persecution of Christians is the worst. The goal of the campaign is to blanket North Korea in prayer for 24 hours a day, seven days a week and is being launched in conjunction with the International Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church (IDOP), which will be observed by thousands of churches in the U.S. on Sunday, Nov. 13. "In North Korea, the persecution of Christians is almost beyond description. Thousands of Christians suffer cruel treatment in concentration camps. Some are treated worse than animals. Christianity is observed as one of the greatest threats to the regime of Kim Jong Il, who is worshipped as a god by millions of North Koreans," says Open Doors USA President Dr. Carl Moeller. An Open Doors co-worker says many people in the underground church in North Korea are aware of the international Open Doors prayer campaign. "The fact that other Christians know about them and pray for them gives them so much strength and hope," he says. (Assist News Service) SURVEY: MORE BRITONS BELIEVE IN GHOSTS THAN IN GOD A total of 2,012 people in the U.K. were polled on their beliefs regarding the supernatural. More than two-thirds (68 percent) said they believe in the existence of ghosts and spirits while just over half (55 percent) said they believe in the existence of a God. Some 26 percent believe in UFOs, 19 percent in reincarnation, and 4 percent in the mythical Loch Ness Monster. The survey found 12 percent believe they have actually seen a ghost. Seventy-six percent said that reality TV shows and films such as "The Blair Witch Project" have helped convince them spooks and ghouls really exist. The poll was carried out in advance of Halloween by entertainment retailer ChoicesUK. (Religion Today/Ananova) *Peace of Christ* http://grace.break.at To send e-mail, remove "youhat" from address

Response:

Pray for the World 3 November 2005 Update From HCJB World Radio MUSLIMS ATTACK BAPTISM CEREMONY IN GUINEA, INJURING 10 PEOPLE MIDDLE EAST STATE TO ALLOW FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN 1,400 YEARS Today’s Top Stories: MUSLIMS ATTACK BAPTISM CEREMONY IN GUINEA, INJURING 10 PEOPLE On Wednesday, Oct. 19, a baptism ceremony in Nzerekore in the West African country of Guinea was attacked by Muslims complaining about the music from the service disturbing their prayers at a nearby mosque. Ten people were injured, two seriously, and several houses were sacked. The Muslims rioted again on the evening of Friday, Oct. 21, and razed a local video store. Elite soldiers had to be deployed to restore calm. Several guns were confiscated, and a curfew was imposed. During the weekend some 100 people were arrested with 56 remaining in detention. The Christians belong to the Guerze ethnic group which has a long history in the forest region of southeastern Guinea. They clashed with Konianke Muslims, a subgroup of the strongly Muslim Mandingo (or Malinki) people. The two tribes have competed for land for more than a century. Religious tensions are increasing as radical Muslims exert more influence in the region. Ethnic-religious violence erupted in Nzerekore on June 16, 2004, when a Guerze youth on a motorcycle accidentally ran into a crowd leaving a mosque, resulting in a riot and hundreds of arrests. (Assist News Service) MIDDLE EAST STATE TO ALLOW FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN 1,400 YEARS The reform-minded emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, has donated land on the outskirts of Doha for the construction of the first Christian church in that country since the 7th century. The Church of the Epiphany, which will begin operations in 2006 under 58-year-old Scotsman Ian Young, will not have a spire or free-standing cross — though walkways and grounds of the church will have motifs resembling those used in early Christian churches. Rev. Clive Handford, the Anglican Bishop in Cyprus and the Gulf, said: "We are there as guests in a Muslim country, and we wish to be sensitive to our hosts . . . but once you’re inside the gates it will be quite obvious that you are in a Christian centre. We hope that the centre can be a base for ongoing Muslim-Christian dialogue." Christianity disappeared from most Gulf Arab states within a few centuries of the arrival of Islam, but many Christians have migrated to the region since the discovery of oil. Qatar’s Anglican community is estimated to be between 7,000 and 10,000 people. (Religion Today/The London Times) *Peace of Christ* http://grace.break.at To send e-mail, remove "youhat" from address

Response:

Pray for the World 2 November 2005 Update From HCJB World Radio Today’s Headlines: HAITIAN POLICE RESCUE MISSIONARIES’ 2 ABDUCTED CHILDREN, FOSTER CHILD MUSLIM ATTACKS INCITE RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE IN NIGERIAN STATE OPERATION BLESSING HELPS IN SENEGAL AFTER WORST FLOODING IN 20 YEARS RELIEF AGENCY SAYS KASHMIR EARTHQUAKE VICTIMS ‘LACK SUPPORT’ RADIO JOURNALIST USES INNOVATIVE METHODS TO SPREAD GOSPEL Today’s Top Stories: HAITIAN POLICE RESCUE MISSIONARIES’ 2 ABDUCTED CHILDREN, FOSTER CHILD Police in Haiti say they rescued, unharmed, two kidnapped children and a foster child of a U.S. missionary couple during a raid on an apartment in Port-au-Prince. Police said 3-year-old Hannah Lloyd, her 5-year-old brother, David, and their 7-year-old foster sister, Miriam, are the children of Pentecostal minister David Lloyd and his wife, Alicia, of Claremore, Okla. The children were abducted at gunpoint by uniformed men on Friday, Oct. 28. Police traced the men to an apartment building in the volatile Delmas neighborhood and raided the property on Saturday, freeing the three children and arresting seven suspects, including a former police officer. Lloyd and his wife run Missions in Haiti, helping to raise 21 Haitian foster children. "It’s been a pretty rough year, but we feel this is where God wants us to be, and we will stay with our mission," Lloyd said. (AgapePress/Associated Press) MUSLIM ATTACKS INCITE RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE IN NIGERIAN STATE Religious violence sparked by a Muslim cutting off a Christian’s hand last Wednesday, Oct. 26, in Tungan Rogo in Nigeria’s Niger state left three Christians dead and at least 13 others injured. The violence also destroyed 18 houses. Religious nerves in Niger state were already on edge following a Sept. 21 attack by Muslims at the Bosso campus of the Federal University of Technology at Minna. A group of Muslims, including at least one extremist brandishing a knife, broke into lecture halls at the school in an effort to enforce sharia (Islamic law). Joshua Ochoge, president of the Fellowship of Christian Students at the university, said students were in class "when suddenly the fanatical Muslim students stormed the halls and began attacking Christian students. The situation later resulted in a fight between the fanatics and the Christian students." (Compass) OPERATION BLESSING HELPS IN SENEGAL AFTER WORST FLOODING IN 20 YEARS Operation Blessing International (OBI) is focusing its efforts on helping in the West African country of Senegal which has seen its heaviest rainy season in two decades. Floods have caused 50,000 people to abandon their homes and 180,000 others are "adversely affected." So far OBI has supplied nearly 65 percent of the disaster relief coming from faith-based organizations. Medical teams of OBI-funded doctors have arrived at several camps, dispensing medicine to evacuees and treating the sick. Makeshift shelters and food sites are not adequately meeting needs which means overflow and unofficial campsites scrambling to find food, water and medical treatment. In many of these areas, refuse is dumped into open pits providing a breeding ground for disease. The country has also had to confront a long-term cholera epidemic that hit more than 25,000 people countrywide. Food, supplies and medical care has become critical in this region. State help has dried up in many areas still struggling with whole communities underwater. (Mission Network News) * HCJB World Radio works in partnership with Brethren Assemblies and SIM in Dakar, Senegal, to make weekly Wolof Christian broadcasts available across the country on an FM network. More than 3 million people speak Wolof. RELIEF AGENCY SAYS KASHMIR EARTHQUAKE VICTIMS ‘LACK SUPPORT’ The Christian aid agency Shelter Now says victims of the devastating earthquake that hit Pakistan and northern India Saturday, Oct. 8, are lacking the support they need to survive. After a visit to the area, Director Udo Stolte said that although the disaster reaches the proportions as those of the tsunami, the response is "lagging far behind." Stolte estimates that the quake’s death toll could rise to 100,000, partly because help isn’t reaching remote areas fast enough. The number of people without shelter, 4 million, is more than double the 1.7 million after the tsunami, yet the media coverage and level of donations is significantly lower. The independent Central Institute for Social Issues in Berlin recently published figures indicating that in the first two weeks after the tsunami, Germans donated more than $360 million — eventually reaching a total of more than $800 million. In comparison, German donations for the Pakistan quake has reached just $24 million. The most urgent need in the disaster zone is tents, said Stolte. Shelter Now will provide 5,000 tents by December and plans to rebuild houses, schools and clinics. (Assist News Service) * HCJB World Radio recently sent a medical team from Ecuador to Pakistan to help SIM International in relief efforts in some of the worst-hit earthquake areas. RADIO JOURNALIST USES INNOVATIVE METHODS TO SPREAD GOSPEL Rachel Phillips, a radio reporter with London’s Premier Christian Radio, recently returned from a notoriously difficult 10-day hike through the rainforests of Brazil, gaining worldwide attention through her online diary and radio reports. She has been working to raise money for homeless children. Phillips kept in touch with staff and listeners through her blog — an online diary with regular audio clips — and satellite phone calls. Christians around the world have been responding to her daily Web and radio updates, including Premier Radio listeners who live in Brazil and are keen to meet the Christian journalist. "I’ve been able to read messages posted on the Premier website from Christians listening in only miles away from where I’ve been staying in Rio," Phillips says. "It’s amazing to see how the gospel can be transmitted through the power of technology." (Assist News Service) *Peace of Christ* http://grace.break.at To send e-mail, remove "youhat" from address

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>>Not any more and there’s a big fuss about it. The definition of a >>>Christian is being opened wide enough to even include 90% of the >>>current church attendees who believe that the Bible must be read with a >>>broad metaphorical sense. >>>Virgin birth and resurrection are very much up in the air among the >>>serious scholars and in the middle of the road divinity schools. >>>Bruce >> You are quite right, Bruce.  Serious theologians in major Protestant >> denominations and even in the Catholic church have reinterpreted these >> doctrines in the light of both enhanced Biblical scholarship and >> science. Jim far overstates the case when he says every Christian on >> the globe believes in the Virgin Birth as a literal fact. But then, I >> don’t expect he spends much time perusing theological journals of the >> day:) What’s more, theologians of many faiths interact with each other >> and share their reserch and interpretations. >Gee, imagine that.  Almost sixty years ago (how long before that I have >no idea) the seminary of the German Lutheran Church was teaching that >there was no heaven or hell and you folks finally discover that >seminaries and congregations don’t communicate. >If Jim says that 90 percent of the congregations interpret the bible >literally, he’s more in touch with reality than the two of you. Just drop >into your local Baptist church, any Baptist church. > Sorry for the length of the following but it’s either say nothing or try > to give you my viewpoint. > I know your bias but you need to open your mind a little to changes that > have taken place more recently than the way things were when we were kids. > Not every congregant walks lock step with the official line. Also I > specifically stated ‘middle of the road’. These churches are in the > majority and are feeling the pressure now. > By using middle of the road I intended to exclude those Southern Baptists > and Pentecostals who haven’t kept pace with change. (Even many of these > laugh nervously when they try to explain the failure of their wives to > submit in accordance with good old King James. I doubt that they are in > agreement with the official line but the family connection is too strong > to risk and the ‘deviant’ theology doesn’t really matter as long as it is > not shared)! > Many new churches don’t tell you whether they are Mennonite, Southern > Baptist or what. They kind of let you know later when they hook you in. If > you want to see what is happening take a look (Google) at the Saddleback > Church in California. > People who don’t follow the ‘official line’ don’t usually shout it from > the housetops. You find them in book clubs and ’safe’ groups where they > can discuss non conformist ideas without fear of reprisal by those who > feel safer in rigid historical tradition. > In any event,  it is true that the growing churches are those who have > firm beliefs in the paternalistic nature of God and their role within that > framework. > The middle of the roaders are going to have to decide if they want to > embrace the newer ideas and disappear or go down the more spiritual and > evangelistic road of the new, very successful mega churches. (Only time > will tell if the new churches success will continue as the educational > level increases in the community. I think their success may be largely due > to a new social paradigm in their local community). > Only time will tell if the middle of the road churches are going to > survive. Personally, I think most middle of the road churches are unlikely > to survive because people are unsettled with change and look for security, > ritual and feeling good. By the time they wake up and look around to see > where the new members are coming from (NOT), it will be too late. > Canada is far less into church than the USA and in Toronto the influx of > other cultures has just wiped out the Christian churches in many > neighborhoods, forcing many amalgamations. They have been replaced by > Greek and Russian Orthodox, Buddhists, Moslems, etc. In Europe church > attendance has also dropped out of sight. > We’ll just have to wait and see what happens.

You’re correct, you are confused.  One point however, Greek and Russian Orthodox are CHRISTIAN!  Perhaps more Christian than anyone else. — Glenn

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Girl Blames Unwanted Pregnancy on Spirit > An unmarried Freehold teenager who found herself in the family way > last week told her parents that she had never known a boy sexually. > Instead, she blamed the pregnancy on a ghost.  She was immediately > slapped senseless by her annoyed parents and sent to Pastor, who threw > her out of the church.  "The whole idea of a spirit diddling with a > young girl is such a preposterous, lewd proposition," said Pastor > Deacon Fred. "Frankly, I don’t know where this little scallywag got > the idea for such an outrageous, bald-faced lie." > http://www.landoverbaptist.org/ > Why not? > That’s essentially what Mary told Joseph about Jesus’ birth,  and every > Christian on the globe believes it.

Hey, lighten up you guys. www.landoverbaptist.org is a parody site. Not as good as Voltaire, but still a fun place.

Response:

>>If Jim says that 90 percent of the congregations interpret the bible >literally, he’s more in touch with reality than the two of you. Just >drop into your local Baptist church, any Baptist church. > What church(es) have you dropped into lately, Glenn?

Rita, what did I just say?  BAPTIST! also Catholic and Lutheran.  I seem to run into a lot of funerals.  What’s taught in the seminaries soon becomes irrelevant when the collection plate is passed. — Glenn

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>Not any more and there’s a big fuss about it. The definition of a >>Christian is being opened wide enough to even include 90% of the current >>church attendees who believe that the Bible must be read with a broad >>metaphorical sense. >>Virgin birth and resurrection are very much up in the air among the >>serious scholars and in the middle of the road divinity schools. >>Bruce > You are quite right, Bruce.  Serious theologians in major Protestant > denominations and even in the Catholic church have reinterpreted these > doctrines in the light of both enhanced Biblical scholarship and > science. Jim far overstates the case when he says every Christian on the > globe believes in the Virgin Birth as a literal fact. But then, I don’t > expect he spends much time perusing theological journals of the day:) > What’s more, theologians of many faiths interact with each other and > share their reserch and interpretations. >Gee, imagine that.  Almost sixty years ago (how long before that I have no >idea) the seminary of the German Lutheran Church was teaching that there >was no heaven or hell and you folks finally discover that seminaries and >congregations don’t communicate. >If Jim says that 90 percent of the congregations interpret the bible >literally, he’s more in touch with reality than the two of you. Just drop >into your local Baptist church, any Baptist church.

What church(es) have you dropped into lately, Glenn?

Response:

> You are quite right, Bruce.  Serious theologians in major > Protestant denominations and even in the Catholic church > have reinterpreted these doctrines in the light of both > enhanced Biblical scholarship and science.  Jim far > overstates the case when he says every Christian on the > globe believes in the Virgin Birth as a literal fact. > But then, I don’t expect he spends much time perusing > theological journals of the day:)  What’s more, theologians > of many faiths interact with each other and share their > reserch and interpretations.

I was making a lame attempt at sarcasm. Since almost every religion on the planet has a virgin birth to report,  I have fun conjuring up Mary convincing Joseph that an angel appeared to impregnate her. After all, they were only engaged at the time.  "Bethrothed" is the word used in the Testament.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Not any more and there’s a big fuss about it. The definition of a >Christian is being opened wide enough to even include 90% of the current >church attendees who believe that the Bible must be read with a broad >metaphorical sense. >Virgin birth and resurrection are very much up in the air among the >serious scholars and in the middle of the road divinity schools. >Bruce > You are quite right, Bruce.  Serious theologians in major Protestant > denominations and even in the Catholic church have reinterpreted these > doctrines in the light of both enhanced Biblical scholarship and > science. Jim far overstates the case when he says every Christian on the > globe believes in the Virgin Birth as a literal fact. But then, I don’t > expect he spends much time perusing theological journals of the day:) > What’s more, theologians of many faiths interact with each other and > share their reserch and interpretations.

Gee, imagine that.  Almost sixty years ago (how long before that I have no idea) the seminary of the German Lutheran Church was teaching that there was no heaven or hell and you folks finally discover that seminaries and congregations don’t communicate. If Jim says that 90 percent of the congregations interpret the bible literally, he’s more in touch with reality than the two of you. Just drop into your local Baptist church, any Baptist church. — Glenn

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Girl Blames Unwanted Pregnancy on Spirit >> An unmarried Freehold teenager who found herself in the family way >> last week told her parents that she had never known a boy sexually. >> Instead, she blamed the pregnancy on a ghost.  She was immediately >> slapped senseless by her annoyed parents and sent to Pastor, who threw >> her out of the church.  "The whole idea of a spirit diddling with a >> young girl is such a preposterous, lewd proposition," said Pastor >> Deacon Fred. "Frankly, I don’t know where this little scallywag got >> the idea for such an outrageous, bald-faced lie." >> http://www.landoverbaptist.org/ >Why not? >That’s essentially what Mary told Joseph about Jesus’ birth,  and every >Christian on the globe believes it. >Not any more and there’s a big fuss about it. The definition of a >Christian is being opened wide enough to even include 90% of the >current church attendees who believe that the Bible must be read with >a broad metaphorical sense. >Virgin birth and resurrection are very much up in the air among the >serious scholars and in the middle of the road divinity schools. >Bruce

You are quite right, Bruce.  Serious theologians in major Protestant denominations and even in the Catholic church have reinterpreted these doctrines in the light of both enhanced Biblical scholarship and science.  Jim far overstates the case when he says every Christian on the globe believes in the Virgin Birth as a literal fact. But then, I don’t expect he spends much time perusing theological journals of the day:)  What’s more, theologians of many faiths interact with each other and share their reserch and interpretations.

Response:

> Girl Blames Unwanted Pregnancy on Spirit > An unmarried Freehold teenager who found herself in the family way > last week told her parents that she had never known a boy sexually. > Instead, she blamed the pregnancy on a ghost.  She was immediately > slapped senseless by her annoyed parents and sent to Pastor, who threw > her out of the church.  "The whole idea of a spirit diddling with a > young girl is such a preposterous, lewd proposition," said Pastor > Deacon Fred. "Frankly, I don’t know where this little scallywag got > the idea for such an outrageous, bald-faced lie." > http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

Why not? That’s essentially what Mary told Joseph about Jesus’ birth,  and every Christian on the globe believes it.

Response:

> Girl Blames Unwanted Pregnancy on Spirit > An unmarried Freehold teenager who found herself in the family way > last week told her parents that she had never known a boy sexually. > Instead, she blamed the pregnancy on a ghost.  She was immediately > slapped senseless by her annoyed parents and sent to Pastor, who threw > her out of the church.  "The whole idea of a spirit diddling with a > young girl is such a preposterous, lewd proposition," said Pastor > Deacon Fred. "Frankly, I don’t know where this little scallywag got > the idea for such an outrageous, bald-faced lie." > http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

  Your important work in spreading the word will be rewarded, Brother Gary.

Response:

Question:

[The first part of this post is directed at the people named, and those aiding and abetting them in their pathetic, childish game of net.terrorism or net.bigotry or whatever.  The last bit is for everyone.] This thread was prompted by the exchanges involving Howard, Lars, Freep, and others.  I should point out that I really don’t care to hear the sexual details of anyone’s life, Steve’s or otherwise.  I really don’t care what he’s done, or with whom.  This isn’t about Steve, it’s about *you*. I find it rather odd that the people slinging the most filth (that wasn’t a baboon reference, but I can see why some folk use the metaphor) seem to be awfully focused on this one act they keep yammering about.  You keep trying to paint someone else as a perv because of this, but *you folk* are the ones obsessed by it and constantly bringing it up.  Maybe you should go look in the mirror and ask who is looking out, and why they can’t quit thinking about this. Or maybe it’s just that you’re bullies.  But being a bully on the net is about as lame as it gets. By the way, I withdraw my comparison to third graders. The way you have been acting makes the most immature, undisciplined, screwed up third grader look good.  At least s/he has an excuse– being only a third grader. If I were a betting man, I’d bet everything I own that each of you has at least one friend who does something you would find personally disgusting, if only you knew.  (That is, those among you who still have friends.)  So you consort on a regular basis with "pervs", and are perfectly happy with it. Perhaps it’s comforting to some to see that both "conservatives" and "liberals" are so good at hypocritical witch hunting.  I merely find it sad and pathetic. So, I am asking all of you who are reasonable to avoid these threads.  Don’t give in to the temptation to join the crowd with the torches screaming, "Burn the monster!", regardless of who the crowd thinks the monster is – Lord Valve, Steve, Elvis, whomever. I don’t expect everyone to avoid irritation or name-callling.  I do think that the vast majority of us are capable of self-respect and self-control enough to avoid jumping in with the bullies just to harass someone.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->[The first part of this post is directed at the >people named, and those aiding and abetting them >in their pathetic, childish game of net.terrorism >or net.bigotry or whatever.  The last bit is for >everyone.] >This thread was prompted by the exchanges involving >Howard, Lars, Freep, and others.  I should point out >that I really don’t care to hear the sexual details >of anyone’s life, Steve’s or otherwise.  I really >don’t care what he’s done, or with whom.  This isn’t >about Steve, it’s about *you*. >I find it rather odd that the people slinging the >most filth (that wasn’t a baboon reference, but I >can see why some folk use the metaphor) seem to be >awfully focused on this one act they keep yammering >about.  You keep trying to paint someone else as a >perv because of this, but *you folk* are the ones >obsessed by it and constantly bringing it up.  Maybe >you should go look in the mirror and ask who is >looking out, and why they can’t quit thinking about >this. >Or maybe it’s just that you’re bullies.  But being >a bully on the net is about as lame as it gets. >By the way, I withdraw my comparison to third graders. >The way you have been acting makes the most immature, >undisciplined, screwed up third grader look good.  At >least s/he has an excuse– being only a third grader. >If I were a betting man, I’d bet everything I own >that each of you has at least one friend who does >something you would find personally disgusting, if >only you knew.  (That is, those among you who still >have friends.)  So you consort on a regular basis >with "pervs", and are perfectly happy with it. >Perhaps it’s comforting to some to see that both >"conservatives" and "liberals" are so good at >hypocritical witch hunting.  I merely find it >sad and pathetic. >So, I am asking all of you who are reasonable to >avoid these threads.  Don’t give in to the temptation >to join the crowd with the torches screaming, "Burn >the monster!", regardless of who the crowd thinks >the monster is – Lord Valve, Steve, Elvis, whomever. >I don’t expect everyone to avoid irritation or >name-callling.  I do think that the vast majority >of us are capable of self-respect and self-control >enough to avoid jumping in with the bullies just to >harass someone.

Was that your lesson of the day Meils? It would have been simpler to just point out that the people who’re the best at recognizing perverts, are other perverts. Takes less words that way. Pete — Next year? Who knows when that’ll be? –Bloo

Response:

> [The first part of this post is directed at the > people named, and those aiding and abetting them > in their pathetic, childish game of net.terrorism > or net.bigotry or whatever.  The last bit is for > everyone.] > This thread was prompted by the exchanges involving > Howard, Lars, Freep, and others.  I should point out > that I really don’t care to hear the sexual details > of anyone’s life, Steve’s or otherwise.  I really > don’t care what he’s done, or with whom.  This isn’t > about Steve, it’s about *you*.

Oh, I’m bleeding. Look, I’d mention it less, except for the fact that he was so gleeful about it, he couldn’t even stop short of slagging people who DON’T lick assholes. "Prudes", he said. It’s all fine for you to drivel and snivel about having respect for others, but people who don’t give any, don’t get any, I say. If he’s so hot to have everyone know he puts his tongue up peoples’ asses, then why cry to ME about it? Oh, I forgot: It’s about ME, isn’t it? Freep – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I find it rather odd that the people slinging the > most filth (that wasn’t a baboon reference, but I > can see why some folk use the metaphor) seem to be > awfully focused on this one act they keep yammering > about.  You keep trying to paint someone else as a > perv because of this, but *you folk* are the ones > obsessed by it and constantly bringing it up.  Maybe > you should go look in the mirror and ask who is > looking out, and why they can’t quit thinking about > this. > Or maybe it’s just that you’re bullies.  But being > a bully on the net is about as lame as it gets. > By the way, I withdraw my comparison to third graders. > The way you have been acting makes the most immature, > undisciplined, screwed up third grader look good.  At > least s/he has an excuse– being only a third grader. > If I were a betting man, I’d bet everything I own > that each of you has at least one friend who does > something you would find personally disgusting, if > only you knew.  (That is, those among you who still > have friends.)  So you consort on a regular basis > with "pervs", and are perfectly happy with it. > Perhaps it’s comforting to some to see that both > "conservatives" and "liberals" are so good at > hypocritical witch hunting.  I merely find it > sad and pathetic. > So, I am asking all of you who are reasonable to > avoid these threads.  Don’t give in to the temptation > to join the crowd with the torches screaming, "Burn > the monster!", regardless of who the crowd thinks > the monster is – Lord Valve, Steve, Elvis, whomever. > I don’t expect everyone to avoid irritation or > name-callling.  I do think that the vast majority > of us are capable of self-respect and self-control > enough to avoid jumping in with the bullies just to > harass someone.

Response:

Hey shit for brains, you’ve been claiming to have me killfiled for some time now.  Why are you reading my posts? How about instead of whining you follow the advice of your lord and master, ‘no likee no clickee’? BTW, if by chance you consider yourself a christian *any* form of oral sex would be considered sodomy, a mortal sin.  If you’ve *ever* had any form of sex with anyone who isn’t your lawfully wedded spouse you’ve committed the mortal sin of adultery. Now tell us all you’ve never done either of those acts of ‘perversion’, we need a good laugh! cheers…. HJA

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> [The first part of this post is directed at the > people named, and those aiding and abetting them > in their pathetic, childish game of net.terrorism > or net.bigotry or whatever.  The last bit is for > everyone.] > This thread was prompted by the exchanges involving > Howard, Lars, Freep, and others.  I should point out > that I really don’t care to hear the sexual details > of anyone’s life, Steve’s or otherwise.  I really > don’t care what he’s done, or with whom.  This isn’t > about Steve, it’s about *you*. > I find it rather odd that the people slinging the > most filth (that wasn’t a baboon reference, but I > can see why some folk use the metaphor) seem to be > awfully focused on this one act they keep yammering > about.  You keep trying to paint someone else as a > perv because of this, but *you folk* are the ones > obsessed by it and constantly bringing it up.  Maybe > you should go look in the mirror and ask who is > looking out, and why they can’t quit thinking about > this. > Or maybe it’s just that you’re bullies.  But being > a bully on the net is about as lame as it gets. > By the way, I withdraw my comparison to third graders. > The way you have been acting makes the most immature, > undisciplined, screwed up third grader look good.  At > least s/he has an excuse– being only a third grader. > If I were a betting man, I’d bet everything I own > that each of you has at least one friend who does > something you would find personally disgusting, if > only you knew.  (That is, those among you who still > have friends.)  So you consort on a regular basis > with "pervs", and are perfectly happy with it. > Perhaps it’s comforting to some to see that both > "conservatives" and "liberals" are so good at > hypocritical witch hunting.  I merely find it > sad and pathetic. > So, I am asking all of you who are reasonable to > avoid these threads.  Don’t give in to the temptation > to join the crowd with the torches screaming, "Burn > the monster!", regardless of who the crowd thinks > the monster is – Lord Valve, Steve, Elvis, whomever. > I don’t expect everyone to avoid irritation or > name-callling.  I do think that the vast majority > of us are capable of self-respect and self-control > enough to avoid jumping in with the bullies just to > harass someone.

Nice try, man.  But, a pig’s gonna roll where he wants to – you’ll just get dirty trying to fish him out.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > [The first part of this post is directed at the > people named, and those aiding and abetting them > in their pathetic, childish game of net.terrorism > or net.bigotry or whatever.  The last bit is for > everyone.] > This thread was prompted by the exchanges involving > Howard, Lars, Freep, and others.  I should point out > that I really don’t care to hear the sexual details > of anyone’s life, Steve’s or otherwise.  I really > don’t care what he’s done, or with whom.  This isn’t > about Steve, it’s about *you*. > I find it rather odd that the people slinging the > most filth (that wasn’t a baboon reference, but I > can see why some folk use the metaphor) seem to be > awfully focused on this one act they keep yammering > about.  You keep trying to paint someone else as a > perv because of this, but *you folk* are the ones > obsessed by it and constantly bringing it up.  Maybe > you should go look in the mirror and ask who is > looking out, and why they can’t quit thinking about > this. > Or maybe it’s just that you’re bullies.  But being > a bully on the net is about as lame as it gets. > By the way, I withdraw my comparison to third graders. > The way you have been acting makes the most immature, > undisciplined, screwed up third grader look good.  At > least s/he has an excuse– being only a third grader. > If I were a betting man, I’d bet everything I own > that each of you has at least one friend who does > something you would find personally disgusting, if > only you knew.  (That is, those among you who still > have friends.)  So you consort on a regular basis > with "pervs", and are perfectly happy with it.

That’s enough. Speaking for myself, Miles, you are indeed lucky you are not a betting man, for you would lose that bet. There are few men I call friend, but those I do I know as well or better than most men know their brothers. The unspeakable impudence with which you would call the least of them "pervs" would certainly get you beaten to death were we to meet. Call those YOU know pervs, if you want to. You clearly don’t know any friends of MINE, and it is your great good fortune that you don’t know me, either. Do yourself a favor and try to keep it that way. As to my posts: if you don’t like them, don’t read them. But if you are ever in front of me talking carelessly about my friends, you won’t live long enough to take it back, for I will not only kick your ass, but also snap your neck. Lars – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Perhaps it’s comforting to some to see that both > "conservatives" and "liberals" are so good at > hypocritical witch hunting.  I merely find it > sad and pathetic. > So, I am asking all of you who are reasonable to > avoid these threads.  Don’t give in to the temptation > to join the crowd with the torches screaming, "Burn > the monster!", regardless of who the crowd thinks > the monster is – Lord Valve, Steve, Elvis, whomever. > I don’t expect everyone to avoid irritation or > name-callling.  I do think that the vast majority > of us are capable of self-respect and self-control > enough to avoid jumping in with the bullies just to > harass someone.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> That’s enough. > Speaking for myself, Miles, you are indeed lucky you are not a betting > man, for you would lose that bet. There are few men I call friend, but > those I do I know as well or better than most men know their brothers. > The unspeakable impudence with which you would call the least of them > "pervs" would certainly get you beaten to death were we to meet. > Call those YOU know pervs, if you want to. You clearly don’t know any > friends of MINE, and it is your great good fortune that you don’t know > me, either. Do yourself a favor and try to keep it that way. As to my > posts: if you don’t like them, don’t read them. But if you are ever in > front of me talking carelessly about my friends, you won’t live long > enough to take it back, for I will not only kick your ass, but also > snap your neck. > Lars

A true Christian speaks, huh? Happy Easter to you too!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> [The first part of this post is directed at the > people named, and those aiding and abetting them > in their pathetic, childish game of net.terrorism > or net.bigotry or whatever.  The last bit is for > everyone.] > This thread was prompted by the exchanges involving > Howard, Lars, Freep, and others.  I should point out > that I really don’t care to hear the sexual details > of anyone’s life, Steve’s or otherwise.  I really > don’t care what he’s done, or with whom.  This isn’t > about Steve, it’s about *you*. > I find it rather odd that the people slinging the > most filth (that wasn’t a baboon reference, but I > can see why some folk use the metaphor) seem to be > awfully focused on this one act they keep yammering > about.  You keep trying to paint someone else as a > perv because of this, but *you folk* are the ones > obsessed by it and constantly bringing it up.  Maybe > you should go look in the mirror and ask who is > looking out, and why they can’t quit thinking about > this. > Or maybe it’s just that you’re bullies.  But being > a bully on the net is about as lame as it gets. > By the way, I withdraw my comparison to third graders. > The way you have been acting makes the most immature, > undisciplined, screwed up third grader look good.  At > least s/he has an excuse– being only a third grader. > If I were a betting man, I’d bet everything I own > that each of you has at least one friend who does > something you would find personally disgusting, if > only you knew.  (That is, those among you who still > have friends.)  So you consort on a regular basis > with "pervs", and are perfectly happy with it. > That’s enough. > Speaking for myself, Miles, you are indeed lucky you are not a betting > man, for you would lose that bet. There are few men I call friend, but > those I do I know as well or better than most men know their brothers. > The unspeakable impudence with which you would call the least of them > "pervs" would certainly get you beaten to death were we to meet.

Well, like you said, you don’t talk to other guys about their sex life, so how would you know? I guess you just judge this by judging their character, right? LOL. Face it dude, you been squawking about Steve for weeks now. Who’s the perv? You’re a real toughie threatening someone over the net, there Larse. > Call those YOU know pervs, if you want to.

You do the same and everyone will be happy, Larse. Refrain from commenting on that which you obviously know nothing about and the world will be a lot friendlier towards you.  You clearly don’t know any > friends of MINE, and it is your great good fortune that you don’t know > me, either.

Thank jeebus for small favours.  Do yourself a favor and try to keep it that way. As to my > posts: if you don’t like them, don’t read them. But if you are ever in > front of me talking carelessly about my friends, you won’t live long > enough to take it back, for I will not only kick your ass, but also > snap your neck.

OOOooh, Larse is a tough guy! Real smart threatening someone you don’t know, rocket man! I guess you’re touchy about your best buddy, Clueless Creep. Come here and say that, little man! Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Perhaps it’s comforting to some to see that both > "conservatives" and "liberals" are so good at > hypocritical witch hunting.  I merely find it > sad and pathetic. > So, I am asking all of you who are reasonable to > avoid these threads.  Don’t give in to the temptation > to join the crowd with the torches screaming, "Burn > the monster!", regardless of who the crowd thinks > the monster is – Lord Valve, Steve, Elvis, whomever. > I don’t expect everyone to avoid irritation or > name-callling.  I do think that the vast majority > of us are capable of self-respect and self-control > enough to avoid jumping in with the bullies just to > harass someone.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> [The first part of this post is directed at the > people named, and those aiding and abetting them > in their pathetic, childish game of net.terrorism > or net.bigotry or whatever.  The last bit is for > everyone.] > This thread was prompted by the exchanges involving > Howard, Lars, Freep, and others.  I should point out > that I really don’t care to hear the sexual details > of anyone’s life, Steve’s or otherwise.  I really > don’t care what he’s done, or with whom.  This isn’t > about Steve, it’s about *you*. > Oh, I’m bleeding. Look, I’d mention it less, except for the fact that he was > so gleeful about it, he couldn’t even stop short of slagging people who > DON’T lick assholes. "Prudes", he said. It’s all fine for you to drivel and > snivel about having respect for others, but people who don’t give any, don’t > get any, I say. If he’s so hot to have everyone know he puts his tongue up > peoples’ asses, then why cry to ME about it?

The fact that you repeat it at every available opportunity indicates a rather unhealthy obsession with the aforementioned activity. As I once told you before (and is now being underscored by someone else) your posts are very telling about the kind of guy you are. It would seem that you are a pervert. Looks like it’s you and Michael Jackson, Freak. Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Oh, I forgot: It’s about ME, isn’t it? > Freep > I find it rather odd that the people slinging the > most filth (that wasn’t a baboon reference, but I > can see why some folk use the metaphor) seem to be > awfully focused on this one act they keep yammering > about.  You keep trying to paint someone else as a > perv because of this, but *you folk* are the ones > obsessed by it and constantly bringing it up.  Maybe > you should go look in the mirror and ask who is > looking out, and why they can’t quit thinking about > this. > Or maybe it’s just that you’re bullies.  But being > a bully on the net is about as lame as it gets. > By the way, I withdraw my comparison to third graders. > The way you have been acting makes the most immature, > undisciplined, screwed up third grader look good.  At > least s/he has an excuse– being only a third grader. > If I were a betting man, I’d bet everything I own > that each of you has at least one friend who does > something you would find personally disgusting, if > only you knew.  (That is, those among you who still > have friends.)  So you consort on a regular basis > with "pervs", and are perfectly happy with it. > Perhaps it’s comforting to some to see that both > "conservatives" and "liberals" are so good at > hypocritical witch hunting.  I merely find it > sad and pathetic. > So, I am asking all of you who are reasonable to > avoid these threads.  Don’t give in to the temptation > to join the crowd with the torches screaming, "Burn > the monster!", regardless of who the crowd thinks > the monster is – Lord Valve, Steve, Elvis, whomever. > I don’t expect everyone to avoid irritation or > name-callling.  I do think that the vast majority > of us are capable of self-respect and self-control > enough to avoid jumping in with the bullies just to > harass someone.

Response:

Fearless Freep, tied to the tracks, said: … > Oh, I’m bleeding. Look, I’d mention it less, except for the fact that he was > so gleeful about it, he couldn’t even stop short of slagging people who > DON’T lick assholes. "Prudes", he said. It’s all fine for you to drivel and > snivel about having respect for others, but people who don’t give any, don’t > get any, I say. If he’s so hot to have everyone know he puts his tongue up > peoples’ asses, then why cry to ME about it?

Whatever he said, he said it one post, from what you’re telling me.  He didn’t go on and on and on, putting it in every possible post from then on. *That’s* the point.

Response:

howard_aubrey, tied to the tracks, said: > Hey shit for brains, you’ve been claiming to have me killfiled for some > time now.  Why are you reading my posts?

Havem’t claimed that in a while. But you’re probably going back in soon. > How about instead of whining you follow the advice of your lord and > master, ‘no likee no clickee’?

You really are clever, Howie.  In case you haven’t noticed, LV is just another guy on the net, far as I’m concerned.  Granted, one who knows his stuff and sells dynamite tubes. But hardly my lord and master.  Maybe *you* buy into that hype?  Not me. > BTW, if by chance you consider yourself a christian *any* form of oral > sex would be considered sodomy, a mortal sin.

First off, why would I think you have anything to say about Christianity?  You’ve got one of the nastiest attitudes and foulest mouths in AGA.  What does hte Bible say about how folk will know a Christian, hmmm? And where do you get these definitions you toss around above?  Lots of Christian churches, pastors,and theologians would disagree with you. > If you’ve *ever* had any > form of sex with anyone who isn’t your lawfully wedded spouse you’ve > committed the mortal sin of adultery.

Hey I’m not Catholic.  All sin comes between us and God.  If you repent, you are forgiven.  That’s what my Bible says. It doesn’t say anything about "mortal" vs "venial" sins. > Now tell us all you’ve never done either of those acts of ‘perversion’, > we need a good laugh!

I have freely admitted that I’m a sinner saved by grace.  Part of my testimony includes the fact that I did drugs, that I slept around, and various other things that would all keep me away from God.  But I repented, and Jesus forgave me.  Just like in the Bible.  That’s what it’s all about.  You can be forgiven, too. [And for the record, my testimony doesn't go into detail about my sex life.] -Miles

Response:

Lars Overshank, tied to the tracks, said: … > If I were a betting man, I’d bet everything I own > that each of you has at least one friend who does > something you would find personally disgusting, if > only you knew.  (That is, those among you who still > have friends.)  So you consort on a regular basis > with "pervs", and are perfectly happy with it. > That’s enough.

That’s pretty funny, coming from you! > Speaking for myself, Miles, you are indeed lucky you are not a betting > man, for you would lose that bet. There are few men I call friend, but > those I do I know as well or better than most men know their brothers. > The unspeakable impudence with which you would call the least of them > "pervs" would certainly get you beaten to death were we to meet.

Nope, I didn’t call ‘em pervs.  But if they do anything like that, then *you* call them pervs.  By definition. If you have almost no friends, then I can believe you know them that well– maybe. And frankly, if you’d try to beat someone to death for calling someone a perv, that’s pretty pathetic.  And a life sentence (or worse) waiting to happen.  Assuming you succeed, of course.  8^) > Call those YOU know pervs, if you want to. You clearly don’t know any > friends of MINE, and it is your great good fortune that you don’t know > me, either. Do yourself a favor and try to keep it that way. As to my > posts: if you don’t like them, don’t read them.

Same back at you. > But if you are ever in > front of me talking carelessly about my friends, you won’t live long > enough to take it back, for I will not only kick your ass, but also > snap your neck.

Whatever. Have a nice life, Lars.

Response:

… > So, I am asking all of you who are reasonable to > avoid these threads.  Don’t give in to the temptation > to join the crowd with the torches screaming, "Burn > the monster!", regardless of who the crowd thinks > the monster is – Lord Valve, Steve, Elvis, whomever.

Ouch!  by association… > I don’t expect everyone to avoid irritation or > name-callling.  I do think that the vast majority > of us are capable of self-respect and self-control > enough to avoid jumping in with the bullies just to > harass someone. > Nice try, man.  But, a pig’s gonna roll where he wants to – you’ll just get > dirty trying to fish him out.

I think that *just about* sums it up… indeed, nice try, and points to Miles for attempting to elevate the discourse. Believe me, there’s *no way* I’d have admitted to anything I was ashamed of here… so don’t worry about me.  My conscience is clean, even if my tongue is not!  (big smiley for all you prudes…) I admit, I used the opportunity to point out what jerks Flars are… they bit hook, line, sinker, rod, tacklebox, and beer cooler.  I should probably reconsider before doing that to someone again… carnal knowledge is not best used as a club. __ Steve .

Response:

> Fearless Freep, tied to the tracks, said: > … > Oh, I’m bleeding. Look, I’d mention it less, except for the fact that he > was > so gleeful about it, he couldn’t even stop short of slagging people who > DON’T lick assholes. "Prudes", he said. It’s all fine for you to drivel > and > snivel about having respect for others, but people who don’t give any, > don’t > get any, I say. If he’s so hot to have everyone know he puts his tongue > up > peoples’ asses, then why cry to ME about it? > Whatever he said, he said it one post,

Wrong again. He went on and on, post after post, about what he assumed I wouldn’t ALSO do, and how prudish he would think I was if  it were so. He moaned and whined ‘cunnilingus’ so many times, I started to think he was *asking* for some. And here, I had thought he was a guy. You really should research these things better if you’re going to go giving sermons all the time about what you think other people should and shouldn’t say to AGAers. Believe me, it is a lot better than just taking a wild guess at what you’d imagine I’m telling you.  How many times do you have to be wrong on a key point before maybe you figure out that you were just plain barking up the wrong tree, here? Remember when you thought that I had just decided to say Steve sucks asses all on my own, unprovoked? And then you thought he only said it once and I was overreacting. Maybe you should ask yourself WHY you made these assumptions. It might be an interesting thought experiment. But then, I guess if you were able to re-evaluate your position, you wouldn’t be a liberal, would you? So think what you want. I’m pretty much over being disappointed in you by now, although I still think it’s a shame, kinda. Maybe you just had too much on your mind lately, and cracked… whatever. As to Steve, he asked for it, and then he got all upset when he got it. I guess he expected I would recoil in shocked silence at the thought of him licking assholes. Like I’d never heard of such a thing before he came along… Didn’t know quite what to do when I didn’t, so he started whining, and getting people like you to draw some of the heat away from him. Typical liberal weenie puss-puss. No wonder you guys travel in packs. Maybe he needs another break to get himself back together. Oh, and for the record: Steve says he shoves his tongue up other peoples’ assholes. So does Canadian Bob, AKA Uncle Fucka. He wasn’t even IN on the conversation, but he just had to jump in to say "me too" when Steve told us about himself. If they can joke about the fact that I don’t, I can certainly joke about the fact that they DO. Especially since I have THEIR word on it. Later, Miles. Here: sit in the killfile for a while. Freep – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> from what > you’re telling me.  He didn’t go on and on and on, > putting it in every possible post from then on. > *That’s* the point.

Response:

… > Later, Miles. Here: sit in the killfile for a while. > Freep

Wow… I think you can see what you stumbled into by what’s missing here (400-some-odd words). I won’t bother to quote it again here… basically, Freep accused me of sucking ass, so I thought I’d turn the tables on him and admit to having done anilingus with a female.  This is what started the bonobo cage rocking. At this point most sensible folk skipped out… as you saw, Freep and Lars decided that there was hay to be made, to their own undoing.  At no point did I regret my admission… I’ve even tired of tarring them with Elvie’s convenient quote.  They’ve dug their grave so far deep that I’m actually considering regretting my admission… obviously it’s burned a spot in Freep’s brain, and I don’t normally go in for extreme damage like that, even for someone as vile as Freep’s been. And now I sound condescending… ’nuff said. Anyway, don’t worry about me.. I think I’ve got the situation well in hand.  Just don’t tell Howie that I’m overweight too, or I’ll die of shame! __ Steve .

Response:

<snip> – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> That’s enough. > Speaking for myself, Miles, you are indeed lucky you are not a betting > man, for you would lose that bet. There are few men I call friend, but > those I do I know as well or better than most men know their brothers. > The unspeakable impudence with which you would call the least of them > "pervs" would certainly get you beaten to death were we to meet. > Call those YOU know pervs, if you want to. You clearly don’t know any > friends of MINE, and it is your great good fortune that you don’t know > me, either. Do yourself a favor and try to keep it that way. As to my > posts: if you don’t like them, don’t read them. But if you are ever in > front of me talking carelessly about my friends, you won’t live long > enough to take it back, for I will not only kick your ass, but also > snap your neck. > Lars

<snip> What a heap-o-horseshit. Congratulations, you’ve now lost what little credibility an anonymous poster can have. Lets see who will stand with you on your threats. Any takers? John King

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > … > Later, Miles. Here: sit in the killfile for a while. > Freep > Wow… I think you can see what you stumbled into by > what’s missing here (400-some-odd words). > I won’t bother to quote it again here… basically, > Freep accused me of sucking ass, so I thought > I’d turn the tables on him and admit to having > done anilingus with a female.

*Figuratively* sucking ass. And it was CLEAR that it was figurative. Not exactly an unprecedented accusation here on AGA. You had wrote in to say yes-you’re-right, and nothing else, to someone, because they were a fellow liberal talking to a conservative. To most, that would be an important distinction. You are the first to respond to it by admitting that you LITERALLY suck assholes, though. So here you are STILL pointing out that you literally suck ass, and saying how proud you are of it. And yet, Miles still insists that you made the statement only once, and then presumably left it alone. He also claims *I* said so. Good for you that you enjoy it. I rather enjoy the howling that reminding others that you do that, produces. It is funny to me that you crow about doing it, REPEATEDLY, and certain others STILL gripe to ME for keeping it going. We’ve already unmasked King, and Miles, formerly thought to be reasonable people, as reflexive liberal-defenders on (let’s face it) ANY topic, no matter how unrelated, no matter how gross, and no matter how initiated by the liberal. That bias, heretofore well hidden, is a good thing to expose. It shows us who we’re dealing with, here. Freep Investigative reporter – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> This is what > started the bonobo cage rocking. > At this point most sensible folk skipped out… > as you saw, Freep and Lars decided that > there was hay to be made, to their own > undoing.  At no point did I regret my > admission… I’ve even tired of tarring them > with Elvie’s convenient quote.  They’ve > dug their grave so far deep that I’m actually > considering regretting my admission… obviously > it’s burned a spot in Freep’s brain, and I don’t > normally go in for extreme damage like that, > even for someone as vile as Freep’s been. > And now I sound condescending… ’nuff said. > Anyway, don’t worry about me.. I think I’ve > got the situation well in hand.  Just don’t tell > Howie that I’m overweight too, or I’ll die > of shame! > __ > Steve > .

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> … >> Later, Miles. Here: sit in the killfile for a while. >> Freep > Wow… I think you can see what you stumbled into by > what’s missing here (400-some-odd words). > I won’t bother to quote it again here… basically, > Freep accused me of sucking ass, so I thought > I’d turn the tables on him and admit to having > done anilingus with a female. > *Figuratively* sucking ass. And it was CLEAR that it was figurative. Not > exactly an unprecedented accusation here on AGA. You had wrote in to say > yes-you’re-right, and nothing else, to someone, because they were a fellow > liberal talking to a conservative. To most, that would be an important > distinction. You are the first to respond to it by admitting that you > LITERALLY suck assholes, though. So here you are STILL pointing out that you > literally suck ass, and saying how proud you are of it. And yet, Miles still > insists that you made the statement only once, and then presumably left it > alone. He also claims *I* said so.

Hey, man, I was there. he said it once, presumably to blow your little mind (I think it can be reasonably assumed that it did the trick-lol) and you have repeated it ad infinitum. > Good for you that you enjoy it. I rather enjoy the howling that reminding > others that you do that, produces. It is funny to me that you crow about > doing it, REPEATEDLY, and certain others STILL gripe to ME for keeping it > going. We’ve already unmasked King, and Miles, formerly thought to be > reasonable people, as reflexive liberal-defenders on (let’s face it) ANY > topic, no matter how unrelated, no matter how gross, and no matter how > initiated by the liberal. That bias, heretofore well hidden, is a good thing > to expose. It shows us who we’re dealing with, here.

I have heard/seen no howling, Freak. It’s all in your mind. The only person you have unmasked is yourself and you are getting feedback from others to your detriment. Why don’t you just keep crowing about it so that everyone can see what kind of asshole you really are? > Freep > Investigative reporter

You ain’t got the smarts, Freak Bob – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> This is what > started the bonobo cage rocking. > At this point most sensible folk skipped out… > as you saw, Freep and Lars decided that > there was hay to be made, to their own > undoing.  At no point did I regret my > admission… I’ve even tired of tarring them > with Elvie’s convenient quote.  They’ve > dug their grave so far deep that I’m actually > considering regretting my admission… obviously > it’s burned a spot in Freep’s brain, and I don’t > normally go in for extreme damage like that, > even for someone as vile as Freep’s been. > And now I sound condescending… ’nuff said. > Anyway, don’t worry about me.. I think I’ve > got the situation well in hand.  Just don’t tell > Howie that I’m overweight too, or I’ll die > of shame! > __ > Steve > .

Response:

. But if you are ever in – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> front of me talking carelessly about my friends, you won’t live long > enough to take it back, for I will not only kick your ass, but also > snap your neck. > Lars > <snip> > What a heap-o-horseshit. > Congratulations, you’ve now lost what little credibility > an anonymous poster can have. Lets see who will stand > with you on your threats. Any takers? > John King

Have you noticed how the superheated responses tend to come from the trollers, not their ‘victims’? As far as the likes of Lars and the various inane Bobs, or the peculiarly foul HJA (as well as a certain underclass of Canadian smegmoids) actually matter, it is in how well they serve as examples of what to avoid on the net. Hyperventilating chest thumpers and self-aggrandizing twits. Boring too. Note to MIles: We keep telling ourselves not to feed the trolls – but from time to time it’s important to put a paragraph of sense on the record, just for purposes of differentiation. Nice post. Chuck www.monkeychild.com

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > . But if you are ever in > > front of me talking carelessly about my friends, you won’t live > long > > enough to take it back, for I will not only kick your ass, but also > > snap your neck. > > Lars > <snip> > What a heap-o-horseshit. > Congratulations, you’ve now lost what little credibility > an anonymous poster can have. Lets see who will stand > with you on your threats. Any takers? > John King > Have you noticed how the superheated responses tend to come from the > trollers, not their ‘victims’? > As far as the likes of Lars and the various inane Bobs, or the > peculiarly foul HJA (as well as a certain underclass of Canadian > smegmoids) actually matter, it is in how well they serve as examples of > what to avoid on the net. Hyperventilating chest thumpers and > self-aggrandizing twits. Boring too. > Note to MIles: We keep telling ourselves not to feed the trolls – but > from time to time it’s important to put a paragraph of sense on the > record, just for purposes of differentiation. Nice post. > Chuck > www.monkeychild.com

It seems to me that this is a tad ironic if you’re not going to include your best buddy Lord Valve in the above list. Calling me inane after posting the above twaddle is actually pretty funny. Bob

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> . But if you are ever in > > > front of me talking carelessly about my friends, you won’t live > long > > > enough to take it back, for I will not only kick your ass, but > also > > > snap your neck. > > > Lars > > <snip> > > What a heap-o-horseshit. > > Congratulations, you’ve now lost what little credibility > > an anonymous poster can have. Lets see who will stand > > with you on your threats. Any takers? > > John King > Have you noticed how the superheated responses tend to come from the > trollers, not their ‘victims’? > As far as the likes of Lars and the various inane Bobs, or the > peculiarly foul HJA (as well as a certain underclass of Canadian > smegmoids) actually matter, it is in how well they serve as examples > of > what to avoid on the net. Hyperventilating chest thumpers and > self-aggrandizing twits. Boring too. > Note to MIles: We keep telling ourselves not to feed the trolls – but > from time to time it’s important to put a paragraph of sense on the > record, just for purposes of differentiation. Nice post. > Chuck > www.monkeychild.com > It seems to me that this is a tad ironic if you’re not going to include > your best buddy Lord Valve in the above list. Calling me inane after > posting the above twaddle is actually pretty funny. > Bob

Your posts speak for themselves, as do mine. I’m comfortable with that. You shouldn’t be. Bye now. Chuck www.monkeychild.com

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> [The first part of this post is directed at the > people named, and those aiding and abetting them > in their pathetic, childish game of net.terrorism > or net.bigotry or whatever.  The last bit is for > everyone.] > This thread was prompted by the exchanges involving > Howard, Lars, Freep, and others.  I should point out > that I really don’t care to hear the sexual details > of anyone’s life, Steve’s or otherwise.  I really > don’t care what he’s done, or with whom.  This isn’t > about Steve, it’s about *you*. > I find it rather odd that the people slinging the > most filth (that wasn’t a baboon reference, but I > can see why some folk use the metaphor) seem to be > awfully focused on this one act they keep yammering > about.  You keep trying to paint someone else as a > perv because of this, but *you folk* are the ones > obsessed by it and constantly bringing it up. Maybe > you should go look in the mirror and ask who is > looking out, and why they can’t quit thinking about > this. > Or maybe it’s just that you’re bullies.  But being > a bully on the net is about as lame as it gets. > By the way, I withdraw my comparison to third graders. > The way you have been acting makes the most immature, > undisciplined, screwed up third grader look good.  At > least s/he has an excuse– being only a third grader. > If I were a betting man, I’d bet everything I own > that each of you has at least one friend who does > something you would find personally disgusting, if > only you knew.  (That is, those among you who still > have friends.)  So you consort on a regular basis > with "pervs", and are perfectly happy with it. > Perhaps it’s comforting to some to see that both > "conservatives" and "liberals" are so good at > hypocritical witch hunting.  I merely find it > sad and pathetic. > So, I am asking all of you who are reasonable to > avoid these threads.  Don’t give in to the temptation > to join the crowd with the torches screaming, "Burn > the monster!", regardless of who the crowd thinks > the monster is – Lord Valve, Steve, Elvis, whomever. > I don’t expect everyone to avoid irritation or > name-callling.  I do think that the vast majority > of us are capable of self-respect and self-control > enough to avoid jumping in with the bullies just to > harass someone.

I for one use the word "pervert" to depict someone who purposely twists, misconstrues, spins or even misquotes someone else’s post in order to destroy their credibility or win some lame ass debate. However, I admit in indulging in some of the same, but it was only after it was done to me. And when one observes way too much of that perverse human activity of ass-kissing, brown-nosing and boot-licking, that same word "pervert" comes to mind when it comes to expressing the disgust of that pathetic activity. But I did not make up those depictions for that activity and only those with the dirty minds are the ones who whine about the images those deptictions make in their own minds.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > . But if you are ever in > > > > front of me talking carelessly about my friends, you won’t live > > long > > > > enough to take it back, for I will not only kick your ass, but > also > > > > snap your neck. > > > > Lars > > > <snip> > > > What a heap-o-horseshit. > > > Congratulations, you’ve now lost what little credibility > > > an anonymous poster can have. Lets see who will stand > > > with you on your threats. Any takers? > > > John King > > Have you noticed how the superheated responses tend to come from > the > > trollers, not their ‘victims’? > > As far as the likes of Lars and the various inane Bobs, or the > > peculiarly foul HJA (as well as a certain underclass of Canadian > > smegmoids) actually matter, it is in how well they serve as > examples > of > > what to avoid on the net. Hyperventilating chest thumpers and > > self-aggrandizing twits. Boring too. > > Note to MIles: We keep telling ourselves not to feed the trolls – > but > > from time to time it’s important to put a paragraph of sense on the > > record, just for purposes of differentiation. Nice post. > > Chuck > > www.monkeychild.com > It seems to me that this is a tad ironic if you’re not going to > include > your best buddy Lord Valve in the above list. Calling me inane after > posting the above twaddle is actually pretty funny. > Bob > Your posts speak for themselves, as do mine.

They sure do, Chuck. You’re an ass-kisser.  I’m comfortable with that. Really? I wouldn’t be. > You shouldn’t be.

If you had brains, you’d be dangerous.  Bye now. Buh-bye Bob

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->[The first part of this post is directed at the >people named, and those aiding and abetting them >in their pathetic, childish game of > net.terrorism >or net.bigotry or whatever.  The last bit is for >everyone.] >This thread was prompted by the exchanges > involving >Howard, Lars, Freep, and others.  I should point > out >that I really don’t care to hear the sexual > details >of anyone’s life, Steve’s or otherwise.  I > really >don’t care what he’s done, or with whom.  This > isn’t >about Steve, it’s about *you*. >I find it rather odd that the people slinging > the >most filth (that wasn’t a baboon reference, but > I >can see why some folk use the metaphor) seem to > be >awfully focused on this one act they keep > yammering >about.  You keep trying to paint someone else as > a >perv because of this, but *you folk* are the > ones >obsessed by it and constantly bringing it up. > Maybe >you should go look in the mirror and ask who is >looking out, and why they can’t quit thinking > about >this. >Or maybe it’s just that you’re bullies.  But > being >a bully on the net is about as lame as it gets. >By the way, I withdraw my comparison to third > graders. >The way you have been acting makes the most > immature, >undisciplined, screwed up third grader look > good.  At >least s/he has an excuse– being only a third > grader. >If I were a betting man, I’d bet everything I > own >that each of you has at least one friend who > does >something you would find personally disgusting, > if >only you knew.  (That is, those among you who > still >have friends.)  So you consort on a regular > basis >with "pervs", and are perfectly happy with it. >Perhaps it’s comforting to some to see that both >"conservatives" and "liberals" are so good at >hypocritical witch hunting.  I merely find it >sad and pathetic. >So, I am asking all of you who are reasonable to >avoid these threads.  Don’t give in to the > temptation >to join the crowd with the torches screaming, > "Burn >the monster!", regardless of who the crowd > thinks >the monster is – Lord Valve, Steve, Elvis, > whomever. >I don’t expect everyone to avoid irritation or >name-callling.  I do think that the vast > majority >of us are capable of self-respect and > self-control >enough to avoid jumping in with the bullies just > to >harass someone. > I for one use the word "pervert" to depict someone > who purposely twists, misconstrues, spins or even > misquotes someone else’s post in order to destroy > their credibility or win some lame ass debate.

Blumby creates a new deffinition for words… > However, I admit in indulging in some of the same, > but it was only after it was done to me.

Blum hereby admits that under "his" definition of the word, he in fact , considers himself to be a *pervert*. Good boy Ed..! ! ! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> And when one observes way too much of that > perverse > human activity of ass-kissing, brown-nosing and > boot-licking, that same word "pervert" comes to > mind > when it comes to expressing the disgust of that > pathetic > activity. But I did not make up those depictions > for that > activity and only those with the dirty minds are > the > ones who whine about the images those deptictions > make in their own minds.

Well, are you saying that this somehow explains some of your more disgusting posts…????  Eh… Ed..??? gtski

Response:

snip drivel This from a troll? After you called out and threatened Miles because you didn’t like something he said? It’s almost too lame for words. STOP drinking before noon Take ALL of your meds -ON TIME DON’T take lessons from other, more competent, trolls. Some of them are going to jail. In jail you WON’T have the internet: the only means at YOUR disposal to fool yourself into thinking ANYBODY gives a shit what you think. I don’t bother to plonk, but I’m done with you. On to a better class of sock. Chuck www.monkeychild.com

Response:

Question:

Hey JackAss!! Did YOU get buggered by your padre??? Stupid question! Of course you did.

Response:

> Hey JackAss!! > Did YOU get buggered by your padre??? > Stupid question! Of course you did.

So thats it harry, your Rabbi had you? And your poor boys darent say a thing in case you bring disrepute on Israel?

Response:

> Hey JackAss!! > Did YOU get buggered by your padre??? > Stupid question! Of course you did. > So thats it harry, your Rabbi had you? And your poor boys darent say a > thing > in case you bring disrepute on Israel?

try as you  might, JackAss, you can’t defend the rank paedophilia of your own churchmen. Google it – the results are foregone. You lose. So noted. —-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > Quote: "In news conference convened following attack, he said, One of > > the injured > > soldiers begged for his life, but I fired directly at him and escaped. > > Hundreds of Gaza residents took to the streets last night to > > celebrate." > > Just goes to show what evil savages the Palestinian scum terrorists > > are, they are not human, just deranged animals, who get their kicks out > > of savagry. Someone should round up every member of Hamas, Islamic > > Jihad, Hizbullah, Al Aqsa and Fatah, oh, and Al Qaeda while they’re at > > it, and stick them all on an island and NUKE IT! > > You were such generous guys? Who can understand them? > > (Wanderer, Oct. 12, 1989, p. 7; National Review, March 16, 1992, p. > S-5). > > Israeli soldiers can beat up a priest on the West Bank, then shoot up > his > > church during Mass, and only the Catholic press takes note > I thought that the priests are too busy fucking little boys to care. > well we do something about it? Apparently your Synagogues hide a lot mre > than you’d care to admit? > "…for many years, (Talmud scribe) Yaakov Yitzhak Brizel…sodomized > ultra-Orthodox boys. The greatest rabbis knew – and did nothing

pathetic…thousands of cases in the church, and a handful of rabbis at it, and you call this a comparison. Results 1 – 10 of about 26,700 for catholic priest pedophilia. (0.15 seconds) Results 1 – 10 of about 337 for jewish rabbi pedophilia. (0.36 seconds)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Quote: "In news conference convened following attack, he said, One of > the injured > soldiers begged for his life, but I fired directly at him and escaped. > Hundreds of Gaza residents took to the streets last night to > celebrate." > Just goes to show what evil savages the Palestinian scum terrorists > are, they are not human, just deranged animals, who get their kicks out > of savagry. Someone should round up every member of Hamas, Islamic > Jihad, Hizbullah, Al Aqsa and Fatah, oh, and Al Qaeda while they’re at > it, and stick them all on an island and NUKE IT! > You were such generous guys? Who can understand them? > (Wanderer, Oct. 12, 1989, p. 7; National Review, March 16, 1992, p. S-5). > Israeli soldiers can beat up a priest on the West Bank, then shoot up his > church during Mass, and only the Catholic press takes note

I thought that the priests are too busy fucking little boys to care. well we do something about it? Apparently your Synagogues hide a lot mre than you’d care to admit? "…for many years, (Talmud scribe) Yaakov Yitzhak Brizel…sodomized ultra-Orthodox boys. The greatest rabbis knew – and did nothing… "At the age of 11, Moisheleh, the strongest fellow in the talmud torah (school for ultra-Orthodox boys), went up to Shaiya Brizel and said to him: ‘Kid, I want you know that your father is not the holy man you think he is. He is a homo.’ …Brizel was a scion of the Brizel family, which founded …the mysterious organization that imposes moral order on the ultra-Orthodox ghetto… "Had the father, Yaakov Yitzhak Brizel …contented himself with homosexual relations with adults, it is reasonable to suppose that we would never have heard his son’s story. "However, in his book, The Silence of the Ultra-Orthodox, published a few weeks ago, the son claims that for decades his father …sodomized yeshiva students. He committed the act in empty synagogues during the hours between prayers and in other places. Loo it up in your Funk & Wagnall? Well as long as we make sure we all know what you stand for? Absolutely nothing, no moral value, noidea of freedom, just nasty little shits throwing shit at everybody? Israeli Visitors WATCH THE TRAFFIC? They might not recognise you as a tourist? Zionist settler deliberately hits and kills Palestinian old man By Nov 15, 2003, 14:02 http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/am/publish/article_3293.shtml http://www.palestine-info.co.uk/am/publish/article_3396.shtml Fanatical Jew? Thet’s you isnt it Harry?

 Al-Khalil – A fanatical Jewish settler today deliberately ran into a Palestinian woman with his car at the bypass road 35 to the west of Al-Khalil city.  Medical sources in Mizan hospital in the city said that Ibtesam Badr Ghaith,  42, suffered a broken pelvis along with internal bleeding and described her > condition as serious.  The malicious settler sped away into a settlement near to Beit Kahel village  west of Al-Khalil city  Do not have male baby sitters The Talmud on Kiddie Sex "…for many years, (Talmud scribe) Yaakov Yitzhak Brizel…sodomized ultra-Orthodox boys. The greatest rabbis knew – and did nothing… "At the age of 11, Moisheleh, the strongest fellow in the talmud torah (school for ultra-Orthodox boys), went up to Shaiya Brizel and said to him: ‘Kid, I want you know that your father is not the holy man you think he is. He is a homo.’ …Brizel was a scion of the Brizel family, which founded …the mysterious organization that imposes moral order on the ultra-Orthodox ghetto… "Had the father, Yaakov Yitzhak Brizel …contented himself with homosexual relations with adults, it is reasonable to suppose that we would never have heard his son’s story. "However, in his book, The Silence of the Ultra-Orthodox, published a few weeks ago, the son claims that for decades his father …sodomized yeshiva students. He committed the act in empty synagogues during the hours between prayers and in other places. Talmud explained http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/talmud.htm Unfortunately, due to the abysmal ignorance of our day, the widespread Judeo-Christian notion is that the Old Testament is the supreme book of Judaism. But this is not so. The Pharisees teach for doctrine the commandments of rabbis, not God. The Talmudic commentary on the Bible is their supreme law, and not the Bible itself. That commentary does indeed, as Jesus said, void the laws of God, not uphold them. As readers of Talmud, we know this to be true. http://frontpage.inficad.com/~romanist/TalmudTruth.htm  http://www.iahushua.com/JQ/talmud.html http://www3.stormfront.org/jewish/talmud.html http://abbc.com/islam/english/toread/talmud2.htm http://www.thelordswork.com/Antichrist/TALMUD.htm http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Cyprus/8815/exp.html

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Quote: "In news conference convened following attack, he said, One of > the injured > soldiers begged for his life, but I fired directly at him and escaped. > Hundreds of Gaza residents took to the streets last night to > celebrate." > Just goes to show what evil savages the Palestinian scum terrorists > are, they are not human, just deranged animals, who get their kicks out > of savagry. Someone should round up every member of Hamas, Islamic > Jihad, Hizbullah, Al Aqsa and Fatah, oh, and Al Qaeda while they’re at > it, and stick them all on an island and NUKE IT! > You were such generous guys? Who can understand them? > (Wanderer, Oct. 12, 1989, p. 7; National Review, March 16, 1992, p. S-5). > Israeli soldiers can beat up a priest on the West Bank, then shoot up his > church during Mass, and only the Catholic press takes note

I thought that the priests are too busy fucking little boys to care. —-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups —-= East and West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—-

Response:

Quote: "In news conference convened following attack, he said, One of the injured soldiers begged for his life, but I fired directly at him and escaped. Hundreds of Gaza residents took to the streets last night to celebrate." Just goes to show what evil savages the Palestinian scum terrorists are, they are not human, just deranged animals, who get their kicks out of savagry. Someone should round up every member of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hizbullah, Al Aqsa and Fatah, oh, and Al Qaeda while they’re at it, and stick them all on an island and NUKE IT! You were such generous guys? Who can understand them? (Wanderer, Oct. 12, 1989, p. 7; National Review, March 16, 1992, p. S-5). Israeli soldiers can beat up a priest on the West Bank, then shoot up his church during Mass, and only the Catholic press takes note…If Christians had done such a thing to a synagogue, anywhere, it would have been front-page news, everywhere. (Wanderer, Oct. 12, 1989, p. 7; National Review, March 16, 1992, p. S-5). http://www.alkhilafah.info/massacres/palestine/ Christian homes being knocked down??? http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1607911.php First no flu shots so the aged will die, then the houses. The Zionist attack on Christianity in Jerusalem: http://www.al-bushra.org/ecu-inter/orthodox.htm http://www.jerusalemites.org/crimes/crimes_against_christianity/ And absolutely fair and democratic in applying the strike law that Bush wants to bring it back to America? Israel Judge Promotes Her Court As a Model http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/weather/6797129.htm strikebreaking If people go on strike simply because they cannot put up with the power for perversions and cruel demands from employees that  the government has handed the employers, the Christian Evangelical Church/s has  given their stamp of approval for all the following? These people rose up as one not because of God, but because of the treatment by God’s chosen people in not following God’s laws. Secular laws. On that day, – wrote John Kifner in The New York Times, – the vast army of Arab labourers who wait on tables, pick vegetables, haul garbage, lay bricks and perform virtually all Israel’s menial work, stayed home. Is it part of the Christian Evangelical Church/s beliefs that this  is the actions God would approve in the case of strike or protest? Shooting selectively? And this statement of Rabin has never been criticised or questioned by the Christian Evangelical Church/s? Yeah or any other Christian institution  for that matter? And as far as anybody can ascertain, is still fully accepted by the Israel government and the churches have never raised an objection to this  as a legitimate action against protestors? The San Francisco Examiner cited Rabin as openly advocating assassination. "They can shoot to hit leaders of disorder," Rabin said in defence of the army’s practice of using marksmen with high-powered .22-caliber rifles to shoot indiscriminately at Palestinian youth The modern churches and the Christian Evangelical Church/s apparently think that this  is God’s law that was imposed,  the victims not the Israeli government’s inhuman and ungodly  persecution at fault, and the  ignoring of god’s law in the process? Well we can understand the Catholic Church, they always blamed the victims  kids) , and the Christian Evangelical Church/s apparently contributes to that type thinking? The Jerusalem Post correspondent Hirsh Goodman  - they have not received any terrorist training, nor are they members of a terrorist organization. Rather they are members of that Palestinian generation that grew up knowing nothing but occupation  All these churches and the Christian Evangelical Church/s apparently support  this as a fair and equitable application of God’s law against 12 year olds?  And fully supports these actions? Well they have not publicly widely opposed this? 12-YEAR OLDS IS OK FOR JEWS?? Still perfectly acceptable practice in Israel today. This type of government is accepted as the norm to this day, and mind you Rabin was supposed to be one of the good guys, Yeah how bad can it get? And does any of the christian churches representatives allowed to see the christians they pick up in these sweeps, dead or alive, or dont they even bother? Rabin ordered house-to-house searches, first for young men and later for anyone of whom an example might be made. By December 27, over 2,500 Palestinians were seized, many of them as young as twelve; by the end of January the number reached 4,000 and was rising Is this some sort of cultural difference that God apparently accepts from Jewish persons backed by the Christian Evangelical Church/s and our other Christian institutions? The protestant and catholic churches in Ireland and England certainly did not advocate this, nor did any politician publicly endorse breaking the culprits hands, and the Irish kids were throwing Molotov cocktails in exactly the same situation? And the Zionist supporters say that is ok? Zionist supporters cheer them on? And this fits neatly into the type of law that God would approve according to the Christian Evangelical Church/s and our other Christian instructions? The first priority is to use force, might, beatings. [This] is considered more effective than detention … [because] he may then resume stoning soldiers. But if troops break his hand, he won’t be able to throw stones The protestant and catholic churches in Ireland and England certainly did not advocate this, nor did any politician publicly endorse this type of behaviour as God’s law given to the chosen people? God would approve according to the Christian Evangelical Church/s and our other Christian instructions? They entered the house like animals, shouting," the 22-year old student at Bir Zeit University said. "They took us from the house, kicking us in the head, beating us, all the soldiers with their rifle butts." This action by soldiers is not preverted, considered normal by who? By April 1988 over 150 Palestinians had died. The Israeli government had admitted to the arrest of 2,000 people, bringing the acknowledged total to 4,000. The real figure was far higher. Sources in the West Bank and Gaza established that the number detained by the weekend of March 27 had exceeded 13,000. Bassam Shaka’a, deposed Mayor of Nablus, placed the total held solely in a hastily constructed barbed-wire encampment at Dhariyah at 10,000. And under these conditions people have no chance of being molested? Children and parents would complain loudly about paedophilia, rape, forced incest, sadistic and perverted against them? Of course and the church, there are christians in thie crowd that your jewish brothers dont like to talk about, did the church race to check the wellbeing of there followers, were they even allowed?  God would approve according to the Christian Evangelical Church/s and our other Christian institutions? In the Balata camp outside Nablus, and in the Casbah – the old quarter – l, 000 people were arrested in a period of 48 hours. The discovery of people in ditches in the fields – shot in the back or with their heads caved in – has been reported from villages throughout the West Bank and Gaza These actions are not on their own not considered perverted actions by the Israeli army, that is practised till today, so to the Christian Evangelical Church/s and our other Christian instutions feel this is God’s law and are sitting back without any criticism? This is normal behaviour not breaking God’s law and religious teachings? The Christian Evangelical Church/s and our other Christian institutions feel this is God’s law and is sitting back without any criticism? Army units go from house to house pulling youths from their beds at 3 a.m. As the buses fill, the soldiers beat the youths viciously around the head, shins, groin and back. Shrieks fill the air. These so called soldiers arent sick perverted human beings by these very actions alone.And is this a sign of closet paedophilia or simply  a sadistic type of paedophilia  or sadism that we feel God would overlook? Two of the children, ages 9 and 11, were taken by the soldiers in their night clothes, frog-marched in the streets and beaten as they were forced by the jeering soldiers to clear debris. And of course no chance of rape, paedophilia or sexual perversions, they have so many avenues to complain, the churh is ensuring that? The Christian Evangelical Church/s and our other Christian institutions feel this is God’s law and are ensuring support at least for the christians? Or  sitting back without any criticism? And god’s chosen have not shifted way out of the path one would consider the way of God and are still the chosen people by the judgement of the Christian Evangelical Church/s and our other Christian institutions? The Good Samaritan story has been declared redundant apparently by the Christian Evangelical Church/s and our other Christian institutions feel this is God’s law and are sitting back without any criticism?  New York Times Fleets of helicopters fly over Nablus at night dropping a dense, green toxic gas over the city. The smell pervades every house. Armed units fire canisters of the substance into houses at random. Doctors at Ittihad Hospital reported several deaths and severe lung injuries from this as-yet unidentified asphyxiating chemical, totally distinct from tear gas. Among the victims was the grandmother of the Da’as family and the 100-year-old father of noted Nablus attorney Mohammad Irshaid. Soldiers had entered the house at 2 a.m., smashing furniture and firing a canister of the dreaded green gas while preventing the family from leaving. Simultaneously, the Israeli army targeted the hospitals. Army trucks rammed ambulances and blocked them … read more »

Response:

Question:

Acts 19:2   Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed? Most Christians are without the Holy Spirit Baptism; but you can get it if you listen to me or someone else who has it.   If you want me to speak to or go to a charismatic Christian Church of Holy Spirit baptism people and listen to them; and you get it too.   Apostle Thomas Batchelor.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Almighty God’s Son, our Comforter! > He rose from the grave to prove there is "no" death; the last "sin" to be > destroyed? Why is this so hard to understand? Jesus said, "He sleeps; > speaking of Lazarus". He also said, " Destroy this temple and I will raise > it up again!" Our body is the temple of God; the kingdom of God is within. > How close do we want to be? Jesus was trying to make us understand "life" is > eternal and death is not paying our way to Heaven! Almighty God does not > need "death" to help us get to heaven! We came from Almighty God and will > return to the creator of "all" life; ready or not! Mortal belief has imposed > that belief upon us and the sooner we overcome it, the better! We are "all" > God’s children, for God’s sake! Are we using an enemy God did not create, > thinking to make it Heaven? Please read the New Testement, King James > Version, John 1: 1-5, 2:19-22, 10:10, 14:5-6, 14:12-16

Response:

Almighty God’s Son, our Comforter! He rose from the grave to prove there is "no" death; the last "sin" to be destroyed? Why is this so hard to understand? Jesus said, "He sleeps; speaking of Lazarus". He also said, " Destroy this temple and I will raise it up again!" Our body is the temple of God; the kingdom of God is within. How close do we want to be? Jesus was trying to make us understand "life" is eternal and death is not paying our way to Heaven! Almighty God does not need "death" to help us get to heaven! We came from Almighty God and will return to the creator of "all" life; ready or not! Mortal belief has imposed that belief upon us and the sooner we overcome it, the better! We are "all" God’s children, for God’s sake! Are we using an enemy God did not create, thinking to make it Heaven? Please read the New Testement, King James Version, John 1: 1-5, 2:19-22, 10:10, 14:5-6, 14:12-16

Response:

> Almighty God’s Son, our Comforter! > He rose from the grave to prove there is "no" death; the last "sin" to be > destroyed? Why is this so hard to understand? Jesus said, "He sleeps; > speaking of Lazarus". He also said, " Destroy this temple and I will raise > it up again!" Our body is the temple of God; the kingdom of God is within. > How close do we want to be? Jesus was trying to make us understand "life" is > eternal and death is not paying our way to Heaven! Almighty God does not > need "death" to help us get to heaven! We came from Almighty God and will > return to the creator of "all" life; ready or not! Mortal belief has imposed > that belief upon us and the sooner we overcome it, the better! We are "all" > God’s children, for God’s sake! Are we using an enemy God did not create, > thinking to make it Heaven? Please read the New Testement, King James > Version, John 1: 1-5, 2:19-22, 10:10, 14:5-6, 14:12-16

Jesus is great! He said, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: {21} Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you". Luke 17:20-21 "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you". Matthew 6:33 Everyone must find that for themselves if they wish that happiness. It surely isn’t a matter of outer political control or imposition – as many ‘Christians’ seem to suggest these days.

Response:

Question:

> And Minni goes on and on: > Do we accept the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare, and others > as accurate and being written by their authors? Of course we do. But did > you know that *all* of them have their earliest manuscripts many TIMES > farther away from (NEWER than) the original writings than the NEWSET New > Testament manuscript? Your hearsay arguement simply doesn’t hold up. > Ahhh!! But my hearsay argument does hold up. The big differnce is that no > one is claining that those authors are the inspired word of God with no > mistakes.

This seems to be a category confusion.  That the bible has been transmitted from its authors is true.  Whether it is inspired is another question.  If you assert that no text transmitted among humans can be inspired (for every human activity involves error), then this is a theological point which I will leave to others.  Your qualifications and mine to decide on the latter may not be adequate. > But if in turn I tell you that there is an old document, that says Attis was > hung on a tree on Black Friday, and died, and he rose on the Pagan day of > the Sun, to save his followers, you tell me I am nuts!!

Which document, specifically? This sort of lazy argument, x=y, is that used to prove the existence of Atlantis by cultists who argue from the presence of pyramids in Egypt and Mexico. > Honesty!!! Honesty!!!

The arguments you are repeating — stale old ‘bible difficulties’ strung into an irrelevant argument — do not seem remarkably honest to me. [More 'bible difficulties', of no relevance, snipped] > Then Minni when it becomes obvious that her only argument, is her book of > myths, and her own conception of what that book says, goes into her little > rant.

Since your own post is purely a rant, and an insulting one, I think you should apologise for this insult. > If you studied this even a little, I’d be interested in what you have to > say. But the more you write here, the more I realize you really don’t > know what you’re tlking about. Rather than making such a fool of > yourself in a public forum, why don’t you take some of that energy and > actually look into it? > Dear, there is a whole library out there for you too read.

Atheists commonly make demands.   They never offer evidence, tho. > Read the Gospel of Thomas, where Jesus tells the disciples that once > he is gone, they are to go to James The Righteous.

Why?  Why not the letters of Pliny the Younger, or the Brothers Karamazov?  But I don’t suppose you know anything about the coptic gospel of Thomas. > Read Eusebius, who tells us in turn, that James > the Righteous was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Read the same thing in > Josephus, and also by Hegesippus. > Then why don’t you tell me again, to look into it.

You claim to have read Eusebius?  What precisely is the relevance of all this? > Nothing quite so amusing as one who reads the bible, and thinks they know it > all.

Except an atheist who has read a couple of web pages and is certain that 2000 years of scholarship is rubbish. > I say we, because not every christian, has your narrow view of the facts.

No-one has as narrow a mind as a teenage atheist. > The more you yap and run on, shows your ignorance.

The more you throw insults, the more certain we are that you have something to hide. > But there is still time. Start doing some reading.

Argument from assertion noted. > Start with Arius. He was a christian, who did not believe in the divinity of > your Godman.

You have never read Arius. From "Documents of the Christian Church", second edition, Selected and Edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford University Press. pp. 39-401. The Letter of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, c. 321 "…But what we say and think we both have taught and continue to teach; that the Son is not unbegottten, nor part of the unbegotten in anyway, not is he derived from any substance; but that by his own will and counsel he existed before times and ages fully God, only-begotten, unchangeable.  And before he was begotten or created or appointed or established, he did not exist; for he was not unbegotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning.  For that reason we are persecuted, and because we say that he is from what is not. And this we say because he is neither part of God nor derived from any substance. For this we are persecuted; the rest you know. I trust that you are strong in the Lord, mindful of our afflictions, a true fellow-disciple of Lucian, Eusebius." The Son was "fully God", you see, even in the thought of Arius. As someone said just now, Honesty, Honesty, Honesty. The willingness of atheists to pretend to have read that which they have not read, to learning they care nothing for, to knowledge they do not possess, is one reason why the honest man considers the average online atheist as a maggot. There are honest atheists, of course.  But you owe your intended victim an apology.  All you have read is a few atheist propaganda pages, the truth of which is unknown to you and indeed of no concern to you.  Don’t do this. All the best, Roger Pearse

Response:

And Minni goes on and on: Do we accept the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare, and others as accurate and being written by their authors? Of course we do. But did you know that *all* of them have their earliest manuscripts many TIMES farther away from (NEWER than) the original writings than the NEWSET New Testament manuscript? Your hearsay arguement simply doesn’t hold up. Ahhh!! But my hearsay argument does hold up. The big differnce is that no one is claining that those authors are the inspired word of God with no mistakes. You make great claims for the bible stories, then you must be prepared to offer great proof. For example, a good Catholic will tell you that, Mary, once she delivered Jesus, was still a virgin. I in turn was in the delivery when my wife delivered my son. Having watched the process, I will not believe that Mary was a virgin, after delivering her son!! In order for you to convince me of that, you have to offer better proof, than some old writings, that you can’t even tell me the date they were written, can’t offer any proof of who wrote them, and if the copies you have were accurately copied. Now, you in turn tell me that Jesus was killed on the cross, was in the grave three days and three nights, and then rose again!! And you want me to believe it!! But if in turn I tell you that there is an old document, that says Attis was hung on a tree on Black Friday, and died, and he rose on the Pagan day of the Sun, to save his followers, you tell me I am nuts!! Your bible tells me, Matthew 12: 40, that Jesus himself said that he would be in the grave for three days and three nights. And then you tell me, he did not know what he was talking about, as he was crucified on Good Fiday and rose on Easter Sunday. Can you see the similiarity of your Godman with Attis?? How did Jesus himself mix it up!! The whole thing is if Shakespeare told you that MacBeth was killed and then rose again, you would not believe it!! If you read the Illiad, do you believe that Zeus was a God?? What makes your writings that you want to believe any more accurate?? That is the point!! And this is Cute: This is absurd. I’m really starting to wonder about your honesty. If what Paul experienced on the road to Damascus was a "sun stroke," then why did he immediately, totally, and utterly change the highly-directed course of his entire LIFE, and begin to fight for, risk his life for, ultimately lose his life for, and do everything in his power to spread the message of those he had previously been murdering and attemtping to eradicate? Honesty!!! Honesty!!! The bottom line is, Paul did not know Jesus. If you read your bible, you would know that James, and John preach a message of obeying the Law (commandments). Paul teaches that the law no longer applies. You would also know that Paul says: Galations 1:1 – Paul an apostle (not of men, neither by man). You would also know that Clement, who knew Peter, warned us how to tell false teachers. He quoted Peter. Chapter XXXV.-False Apostles. "Wherefore observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he bring from Jerusalem the testimonial of James the Lord’s brother, or of whosoever may come after him.29 For no one, unless he has gone up thither, and there has been approved as a fit and faithful teacher for preaching the word of Christ,-unless, I say, he brings a testimonial thence, is by any means to be received. But let neither prophet nor apostle be looked for by you at this time, besides us. For there is one true Prophet, whose words we twelve apostles preach; for He is the accepted year of God, having us apostles as His twelve months. But for what reason the world itself was made, or what diversities have occurred in it, and why our Lord, coming for its restoration, has chosen and sent us twelve apostles, shall be explained more at length at another time. Meantime He has commanded us to go forth to preach, and to invite you to the supper of the heavenly King, which the Father hath prepared for the marriage of His Son, and that we should give you wedding garments, that is, the grace of baptism;30 which whosoever obtains, as a spotless robe with which he is to enter to the supper of the King, ought to beware that it be not in any part of it stained with sin, and so he be rejected as unworthy and reprobate." Now read Galations 1:1 again. Paul tells us not by man (James). Then Minni when it becomes obvious that her only argument, is her book of myths, and her own conception of what that book says, goes into her little rant. If you studied this even a little, I’d be interested in what you have to say. But the more you write here, the more I realize you really don’t know what you’re tlking about. Rather than making such a fool of yourself in a public forum, why don’t you take some of that energy and actually look into it? Dear, there is a whole library out there for you too read. Read the Gospel of Thomas, where Jesus tells the disciples that once he is gone, they are to go to James The Righteous. Read Eusebius, who tells us in turn, that James the Righteous was the first Bishop of Jerusalem. Read the same thing in Josephus, and also by Hegesippus. Then why don’t you tell me again, to look into it. Nothing quite so amusing as one who reads the bible, and thinks they know it all. I say we, because not every christian, has your narrow view of the facts. The more you yap and run on, shows your ignorance. But there is still time. Start doing some reading. Start with Arius. He was a christian, who did not believe in the divinity of your Godman.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> 10 Reasons to Believe in Life After Death, pt. 8 > Quotes Of Christ >     Few would accuse Jesus of being an evil man or a false teacher.  Even > atheists and people belonging to non-Christian religions usually refer to > Jesus with deference and respect.  But Jesus wasn’t vague or indefinite > about the reality of a continuing personal existence after death.  He > said, > "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.  But rather > fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew > 10:28).  Jesus promised Paradise to the repentant thief who was dying at > His side, but He also used the Valley of Hinnom — a foul garbage dump > outside of Jerusalem — as a symbol of what awaits those who insist on > risking the judgment of God.  According to Jesus, facing the reality of > life after death is the most significant issue of life.  He said, for > example, that if an eye keeps you from God, you have reason to get rid of > that eye.  "It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye > than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell" (Mark 9:47 NIV). > Do we know when any of these gospels were written?? I checked Matthew and > the jury is still out. Anywhere from 36AD to 100AD. > Did Matthew write it?? Who did?? > If we do not know for sure, who wrote it, when it was written, would it not > just be hearsay evidence??

Do we accept the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Shakespeare, and others as accurate and being written by their authors? Of course we do. But did you know that *all* of them have their earliest manuscripts many TIMES farther away from (NEWER than) the original writings than the NEWSET New Testament manuscript? Your hearsay arguement simply doesn’t hold up. > What about Mark’s Gospel?? Did Mark know Jesus?? Do we know?? Who was Mark?? > What do we know about this guy?? > Wow!!! Could be more hearsay!!

Same. > Luke?? Wasn’t he a buddy of Paul?? We know from the scriptures that  Paul > never met Jesus. Every thing Paul knew about Jesus he learned when he had > sun stroke on the road to Damacus!! Of course Paul said it was a vision.

This is absurd. I’m really starting to wonder about your honesty. If what Paul experienced on the road to Damascus was a "sun stroke," then why did he immediately, totally, and utterly change the highly-directed course of his entire LIFE, and begin to fight for, risk his life for, ultimately lose his life for, and do everything in his power to spread the message of those he had previously been murdering and attemtping to eradicate? You need to get off your sad high horse and read the Scriptures, instead of just parroting weak ideas you haven’t even begun to think through. > Luke?? Did he know Jesus?? Have a Vsion like his buddy Paul?? Or did he just > record more hearsay??

Luke was a doctor who worked with Paul, among other believers. Same recommendation. Read the Scriptures. > John?? Many experts say that John has two authors. When was it written?? > Where?? By who?? Ooops. Could be more hearsay. > Bottom line, we have a written record. It’s like those paprus scrolls. or > Summerian clay tablets. Myths?? Folklore?? A grain of truth?? > We do not know.

If you studied this even a little, I’d be interested in what you have to say. But the more you write here, the more I realize you really don’t know what you’re tlking about. Rather than making such a fool of yourself in a public forum, why don’t you take some of that energy and actually look into it? > But we Believe!!

What do you mean WE? You’re working for the other team. But your guys lose in the end. Why not come over to the winning side while it’s still possible? Minni

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> 10 Reasons to Believe in Life After Death, pt. 8 > Quotes Of Christ >     Few would accuse Jesus of being an evil man or a false teacher.  Even > atheists and people belonging to non-Christian religions usually refer to > Jesus with deference and respect.  But Jesus wasn’t vague or indefinite > about the reality of a continuing personal existence after death.  He said, > "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.  But rather > fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew > 10:28).  Jesus promised Paradise to the repentant thief who was dying at > His side, but He also used the Valley of Hinnom — a foul garbage dump > outside of Jerusalem — as a symbol of what awaits those who insist on > risking the judgment of God.  According to Jesus, facing the reality of > life after death is the most significant issue of life.  He said, for > example, that if an eye keeps you from God, you have reason to get rid of > that eye.  "It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye > than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell" (Mark 9:47 NIV).

Do we know when any of these gospels were written?? I checked Matthew and the jury is still out. Anywhere from 36AD to 100AD. Did Matthew write it?? Who did?? If we do not know for sure, who wrote it, when it was written, would it not just be hearsay evidence?? What about Mark’s Gospel?? Did Mark know Jesus?? Do we know?? Who was Mark?? What do we know about this guy?? Wow!!! Could be more hearsay!! Luke?? Wasn’t he a buddy of Paul?? We know from the scriptures that  Paul never met Jesus. Every thing Paul knew about Jesus he learned when he had sun stroke on the road to Damacus!! Of course Paul said it was a vision. Luke?? Did he know Jesus?? Have a Vsion like his buddy Paul?? Or did he just record more hearsay?? John?? Many experts say that John has two authors. When was it written?? Where?? By who?? Ooops. Could be more hearsay. Bottom line, we have a written record. It’s like those paprus scrolls. or Summerian clay tablets. Myths?? Folklore?? A grain of truth?? We do not know. But we Believe!!

Response:

10 Reasons to Believe in Life After Death, pt. 8 Quotes Of Christ         Few would accuse Jesus of being an evil man or a false teacher.  Even atheists and people belonging to non-Christian religions usually refer to Jesus with deference and respect.  But Jesus wasn’t vague or indefinite about the reality of a continuing personal existence after death.  He said, "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.  But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matthew 10:28).  Jesus promised Paradise to the repentant thief who was dying at His side, but He also used the Valley of Hinnom — a foul garbage dump outside of Jerusalem — as a symbol of what awaits those who insist on risking the judgment of God.  According to Jesus, facing the reality of life after death is the most significant issue of life.  He said, for example, that if an eye keeps you from God, you have reason to get rid of that eye.  "It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell" (Mark 9:47 NIV).

Question:

In a backroom move, the overwhelmingly GOP appointed Supreme Court, took it upon itself to destroy the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The media did not cover this, outside of a buried sentence midway in a related paragraph on the cover of the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday October 6, 2004 America under GWBush. The retro-McCarthy years. Vote Kerry/Edwards on 11/2/04

  LViswhitetrash.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

Why? www.hlrecord.org/news/2003/09/18/News/News-Analysis. 9th.Circuit.Panel.Delays.Recall.Vote-470068.shtml 2000, The U.S. Supreme court installed Bush and is doing everything possible to assist the GOP effort this election, 2004. Can’t find it* on-line? Get your hands on the Wall Street Journal Wednesday October 6, 2004 Front page. Scan the news paragraph summaries. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > In a backroom move, the overwhelmingly GOP appointed Supreme Court, took > it upon itself to *destroy the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of > Appeals. > The media did not cover this, outside of a buried sentence midway > in a related paragraph on the cover of the Wall Street Journal on > Wednesday October 6, 2004 > America under GWBush. The retro-McCarthy years. > Vote Kerry/Edwards on 11/2/04

  LViswhitetrash.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

> In a backroom move, the overwhelmingly GOP appointed Supreme Court, took > it upon itself to destroy the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of > Appeals. > The media did not cover this, outside of a buried sentence midway > in a related paragraph on the cover of the Wall Street Journal on > Wednesday October 6, 2004 > America under GWBush. The retro-McCarthy years. > Vote Kerry/Edwards on 11/2/04

Actually, it was on CNN, albeit on the line running beneath the regular screen. I thought it worthy of a giant Yuck or two. I’m not a conservative. Come on, you have to admit that they were playing a different tune than the rest of the band. Gomez Addams would even have scratched his head at some of their edicts. Ed Cregger

Response:

Well Ed, I guess "playing a different tune", is out of favor in a "democracy" these days, huh? I now think the collapse of the USSR was a disastrous misfortune for the USA dressed up to appear like a blessing. Add media-fed terrorism insecurity, and you are witnessing the creation of a police state previous generations of Americans would have gone riot-revolutionary over. It all happens in increments. Cultures adapt slowly to the noose. As a nation, a GREAT game is still talked re; "ideals" and "the constitution", but reality is saying; "Once the population size hits a certain threshold, fuck that ancient bullshit". America…"the experiment". IF the current direction were to continue uninterrupted (and I’m deeply faithful that it can’t), then if you, me or the fencepost was to be cryogenically frozen and brought back to life in 150 years, the U.S. would be USSRII, Pravda (FoxNews) and all. Population 750 million. Nothing runs in a straight line. History decrees that "Horses of the Apocolypse" and retro-movements politically guarantee it. Thank nature. Vote: Kerry/Edwards – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->In a backroom move, the overwhelmingly GOP appointed Supreme Court, took >it upon itself to destroy the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of >Appeals. >The media did not cover this, outside of a buried sentence midway >in a related paragraph on the cover of the Wall Street Journal on >Wednesday October 6, 2004 >America under GWBush. The retro-McCarthy years. >Vote Kerry/Edwards on 11/2/04 > Actually, it was on CNN, albeit on the line running beneath the regular > screen. I thought it worthy of a giant Yuck or two. I’m not a conservative. > Come on, you have to admit that they were playing a different tune than the > rest of the band. Gomez Addams would even have scratched his head at some of > their edicts. > Ed Cregger

  LViswhitetrash.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Well Ed, I guess "playing a different tune", is out of favor in a > "democracy" these days, huh? I now think the collapse of the USSR was a > disastrous misfortune for the USA dressed up to appear like a > blessing. Add media-fed terrorism insecurity, and you are witnessing the > creation of a police state previous generations of Americans would have > gone riot-revolutionary over. It all happens in increments. Cultures > adapt slowly to the noose. > As a nation, a GREAT game is still talked re; "ideals" and "the > constitution", but reality is saying; "Once the population size hits a > certain threshold, fuck that ancient bullshit". > America…"the experiment". > IF the current direction were to continue uninterrupted (and I’m deeply > faithful that it can’t), then if you, me or the fencepost was to be > cryogenically frozen and brought back to life in 150 years, the U.S. > would be USSRII, Pravda (FoxNews) and all. Population 750 million. > Nothing runs in a straight line. History decrees that "Horses of the > Apocolypse" and retro-movements politically guarantee it. Thank nature. > Vote: Kerry/Edwards >> In a backroom move, the overwhelmingly GOP appointed Supreme Court, took >> it upon itself to destroy the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of >> Appeals. >> The media did not cover this, outside of a buried sentence midway >> in a related paragraph on the cover of the Wall Street Journal on >> Wednesday October 6, 2004 >> America under GWBush. The retro-McCarthy years. >> Vote Kerry/Edwards on 11/2/04 > Actually, it was on CNN, albeit on the line running beneath the > regular screen. I thought it worthy of a giant Yuck or two. I’m not a > conservative. > Come on, you have to admit that they were playing a different tune > than the rest of the band. Gomez Addams would even have scratched his > head at some of their edicts. > Ed Cregger

  LViswhitetrash.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

> Well Ed, I guess "playing a different tune", is out of favor in a > "democracy" these days, huh? I now think the collapse of the USSR was a > disastrous misfortune for the USA dressed up to appear like a > blessing. Add media-fed terrorism insecurity, and you are witnessing the > creation of a police state previous generations of Americans would have > gone riot-revolutionary over. It all happens in increments. Cultures > adapt slowly to the noose.

You are twisting the meaning of what I said. Playing a different tune means precisely that. If three members of the orchestra decide to play "Louie-Louie" and the rest are playing a symphony, cacophony results. That is what I meant. > As a nation, a GREAT game is still talked re; "ideals" and "the > constitution", but reality is saying; "Once the population size hits a > certain threshold, fuck that ancient bullshit".

That is what the left wing is preaching these days and it is precisely why the rest of us should insist that we keep our firearms. If need be, we can legally reclaim our government through force and eject those that would usurp individual rights and ignore the US Constitution. Such people are the enemy. Not me. > America…"the experiment". > IF the current direction were to continue uninterrupted (and I’m deeply > faithful that it can’t), then if you, me or the fencepost was to be > cryogenically frozen and brought back to life in 150 years, the U.S. > would be USSRII, Pravda (FoxNews) and all. Population 750 million. > Nothing runs in a straight line. History decrees that "Horses of the > Apocolypse" and retro-movements politically guarantee it. Thank nature.

Say what? WTF are you talking about? The only constant in life is change, my friend. President Bush has only four more years to go at the most. Just as Clinton served his eight only to be replaced by Bush. What are you so concerned about? They are but a glimmer in time and the grand scheme of things. My different drum comment seemed to agitate you. Each of us is different in some way, so I am sympathetic to the acceptance of those that do not follow the straight and narrow. However, I am not one to elevate other’s rights over the the rights of the majority simply because they are different, whether it be a different sexual orientation, disability, race, genetic makeup, etc. We, as a society, should help those that truly need help and we should not hinder those that wander a bit from the straight path. However, the very nature of society demands that we all move in the same basic direction. To do otherwise would be to permit/encourage anarchy. That has no place in civilized society. The court that was dissolved had dropped into legal anarchy and they could not find their way back to the mainstream. I think the government’s handling of the problem was quite eloquent. Ed Cregger

Response:

> In a backroom move, the overwhelmingly GOP appointed Supreme Court, took > it upon itself to destroy the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of > Appeals. > The media did not cover this, outside of a buried sentence midway > in a related paragraph on the cover of the Wall Street Journal on > Wednesday October 6, 2004 > America under GWBush. The retro-McCarthy years. > Vote Kerry/Edwards on 11/2/04

Three-quarters of the 9th’s decisions are overturned by the SCOTUS, most of them unanimously, which is probably still some kind of record.  That’s above average, although that is partly explained by the sheer size of this court and the enourmous number of cases that occur in its territory, a quarter of all U.S. litigation.  But the 9th is known for absolutely looney-tunes decisions, like Customs/Border Patrol officers can search a car for drugs, except the gas tank, that’s off limits, or the Pledge of Alliagance being unconstitutional. Justice William Rehnquist (later chief justice), said some Ninth Circuit judges "have a hard time saying no to any litigant with a hard-luck story." Some folks think the 9th has eased up a bit, and is no longer the rogue leftward leaning court of legend, but it’s hard to tell when you see some of the goofball decisions that court makes. Courts are supposed to rule on the law, not make it, and the 9th can’t seem to get that, if they’re being reined-in, they’ve sure asked for it.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> In a backroom move, the overwhelmingly GOP appointed Supreme Court, took > it upon itself to destroy the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of > Appeals. > The media did not cover this, outside of a buried sentence midway > in a related paragraph on the cover of the Wall Street Journal on > Wednesday October 6, 2004 > America under GWBush. The retro-McCarthy years. > Vote Kerry/Edwards on 11/2/04 > Three-quarters of the 9th’s decisions are overturned by the SCOTUS, most of > them unanimously, which is probably still some kind of record.

Where do you get this nonsense?  3/4 of the decisions are not even appealed. >  That’s above > average, although that is partly explained by the sheer size of this court > and the enourmous number of cases that occur in its territory, a quarter of > all U.S. litigation.  But the 9th is known for absolutely looney-tunes > decisions, like Customs/Border Patrol officers can search a car for drugs, > except the gas tank, that’s off limits, or the Pledge of Alliagance being > unconstitutional.

The bottom line is that it is the job of the judicial branch to look out for the rights of the minority, the unpopular.  The value of protecting the rights of the minority is often missed by the majority, hence the common distorted view of the Courts as being "looney-tunes" because they don’t follow the whim of the majority. > Justice William Rehnquist (later chief justice), said some Ninth Circuit > judges "have a hard time saying no to any litigant with a hard-luck story." > Some folks think the 9th has eased up a bit, and is no longer the rogue > leftward leaning court of legend, but it’s hard to tell when you see some of > the goofball decisions that court makes. > Courts are supposed to rule on the law, not make it, and the 9th can’t seem > to get that, if they’re being reined-in, they’ve sure asked for it.

Courts interpret the law, and are supposed to do so ultimately based on the Constitution, which protects the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority (i.e.. people who think that Judges/Justices are just a bunch of kooks and that decisions should really just follow the will of the majority). Court decisions serve as precedent, thus they become "the law."  The one true "law" for a judge at the federal appellate level is the Constitution, which governs all other law. We sit at the crossroads.  If GW is reelected, he will fill the courts with judges that WILL NOT protect the Constitutional rights of the minority.  (Do NOT mistake this for "minorities" in the racial sense.)  He will select candidates that have a Christian/right agenda that is contrary to basic civil liberties. The Courts are here to PROTECT us, not to tell us how to live our lives.  Four more years will mean rapidly eroding civil liberties.  The "Patriot Act" is just the beginning.

Response:

>We sit at the crossroads.  If GW is reelected, he will fill the courts with >judges that WILL NOT protect the Constitutional rights of the minority. > (Do NOT >mistake this for "minorities" in the racial sense.)  He will select candidates >that have a Christian/right agenda that is contrary to basic civil liberties. >The Courts are here to PROTECT us, not to tell us how to live our lives. > Four >more years will mean rapidly eroding civil liberties.  The "Patriot Act" >is just >the beginning.

Jim, Jim, Jim, has someone at a Seattle Starbucks been spiking your morning coffee and bagel with something a little stronger than poppy seeds? — Dr. Nuketopia Sorry, no e-Mail. Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

Response:

In my opinion Ed, based soley upon your twisted reception of the my clear post on the 9th Cirvuit matter, you are right wing and don’t even know it. You exhibit *the* very tendencies most useful to a cult. Since you arbitrarily decided to add GUN CONTROL to a post observing the insideous destruction of dissent in America, know this; If America was a homogenous non-cauldron across the spectrum of race, religion,income, and REAL routine opportunity to achieve, her populace wouldn’t feel a hyper-paranoid need for guns in everyone’s hand to begin with. This isn’t Sweden. The size of the nation and the tremendous diversity it represents guarantees innate conflict. The left end of the bell curve, both in terms of IQ and EQ virtually guarantees a murder and suicide rate the NRA and peole like you can’t hide. "Mainstream" that. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Well Ed, I guess "playing a different tune", is out of favor in a >"democracy" these days, huh? I now think the collapse of the USSR was a >disastrous misfortune for the USA dressed up to appear like a >blessing. Add media-fed terrorism insecurity, and you are witnessing the >creation of a police state previous generations of Americans would have >gone riot-revolutionary over. It all happens in increments. Cultures >adapt slowly to the noose. > You are twisting the meaning of what I said. Playing a different tune means > precisely that. If three members of the orchestra decide to play > "Louie-Louie" and the rest are playing a symphony, cacophony results. That > is what I meant. >As a nation, a GREAT game is still talked re; "ideals" and "the >constitution", but reality is saying; "Once the population size hits a >certain threshold, fuck that ancient bullshit". > That is what the left wing is preaching these days and it is precisely why > the rest of us should insist that we keep our firearms. If need be, we can > legally reclaim our government through force and eject those that would > usurp individual rights and ignore the US Constitution. Such people are the > enemy. Not me. >America…"the experiment". >IF the current direction were to continue uninterrupted (and I’m deeply >faithful that it can’t), then if you, me or the fencepost was to be >cryogenically frozen and brought back to life in 150 years, the U.S. >would be USSRII, Pravda (FoxNews) and all. Population 750 million. >Nothing runs in a straight line. History decrees that "Horses of the >Apocolypse" and retro-movements politically guarantee it. Thank nature. > Say what? WTF are you talking about? > The only constant in life is change, my friend. President Bush has only four > more years to go at the most. Just as Clinton served his eight only to be > replaced by Bush. What are you so concerned about? They are but a glimmer in > time and the grand scheme of things. > My different drum comment seemed to agitate you. Each of us is different in > some way, so I am sympathetic to the acceptance of those that do not follow > the straight and narrow. > However, I am not one to elevate other’s rights over the the rights of the > majority simply because they are different, whether it be a different sexual > orientation, disability, race, genetic makeup, etc. > We, as a society, should help those that truly need help and we should not > hinder those that wander a bit from the straight path. > However, the very nature of society demands that we all move in the same > basic direction. To do otherwise would be to permit/encourage anarchy. That > has no place in civilized society. > The court that was dissolved had dropped into legal anarchy and they could > not find their way back to the mainstream. I think the government’s handling > of the problem was quite eloquent. > Ed Cregger

  LViswhitetrash.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

Jim, I apologize for all prior fucking with you about guitar playing issues. Fortunately, you’re a Westerner, learned about the issue I started this thread about. If EVER there was a domestic issue to bounce these fucks out of office on, *this* crystallizes it…as if Iraq, Outsourcing, Rising interest rates to handle the U.S. budget deficit and Oil passing $50 bbl weren’t enough. Regards, Marc Mulay P.S. I’m an avowed iconoclast by nature. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>In a backroom move, the overwhelmingly GOP appointed Supreme Court, took >>it upon itself to destroy the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of >>Appeals. >>The media did not cover this, outside of a buried sentence midway >>in a related paragraph on the cover of the Wall Street Journal on >>Wednesday October 6, 2004 >>America under GWBush. The retro-McCarthy years. >>Vote Kerry/Edwards on 11/2/04 >Three-quarters of the 9th’s decisions are overturned by the SCOTUS, most of >them unanimously, which is probably still some kind of record. > Where do you get this nonsense?  3/4 of the decisions are not even appealed. > That’s above >average, although that is partly explained by the sheer size of this court >and the enourmous number of cases that occur in its territory, a quarter of >all U.S. litigation.  But the 9th is known for absolutely looney-tunes >decisions, like Customs/Border Patrol officers can search a car for drugs, >except the gas tank, that’s off limits, or the Pledge of Alliagance being >unconstitutional. > The bottom line is that it is the job of the judicial branch to look out for the > rights of the minority, the unpopular.  The value of protecting the rights of > the minority is often missed by the majority, hence the common distorted view of > the Courts as being "looney-tunes" because they don’t follow the whim of the > majority. >Justice William Rehnquist (later chief justice), said some Ninth Circuit >judges "have a hard time saying no to any litigant with a hard-luck story." >Some folks think the 9th has eased up a bit, and is no longer the rogue >leftward leaning court of legend, but it’s hard to tell when you see some of >the goofball decisions that court makes. >Courts are supposed to rule on the law, not make it, and the 9th can’t seem >to get that, if they’re being reined-in, they’ve sure asked for it. > Courts interpret the law, and are supposed to do so ultimately based on the > Constitution, which protects the rights of the minority against the tyranny of > the majority (i.e.. people who think that Judges/Justices are just a bunch of > kooks and that decisions should really just follow the will of the majority). > Court decisions serve as precedent, thus they become "the law."  The one true > "law" for a judge at the federal appellate level is the Constitution, which > governs all other law. > We sit at the crossroads.  If GW is reelected, he will fill the courts with > judges that WILL NOT protect the Constitutional rights of the minority.  (Do NOT > mistake this for "minorities" in the racial sense.)  He will select candidates > that have a Christian/right agenda that is contrary to basic civil liberties. > The Courts are here to PROTECT us, not to tell us how to live our lives.  Four > more years will mean rapidly eroding civil liberties.  The "Patriot Act" is just > the beginning.

  LViswhitetrash.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

Left wing schming. I am so freakin sick of hearing that capital B U L L S H I T. What the left wing is preachin? It’s what comon folk (not the kind Bush was taling about in the debate) will tell you that Bush and co are pure Corporatopolists. A slightler newer more industrial strength facism combined with theocratically inclined fundamentalist nutballs. So my next question is, if we intend to make like trees and leave, where do we go from here, cause I ain’t stickin around to find out what’ll happen after our friends Lord Valve and Kevin Singelton turn us all in for their re-ward. They can’t wait, already counting their change but by God if they come for me, I’m not goin down without a fight. Come on Ed- how much you worth anyway? If you aren’t pulling down 10 million or more you aren’t close to playing with the big boys yanking your chain. It’s just pathetic to hear you 50hr/6 day a week guys go on about the left as if you HAVE something the left is gonna give away. You ain’t got nothing. NADA Nothing that anybody is gonna take away from you on the left. You walk into WalMart or Home Depot or Starbucks (capitalized at How many billion dollars?) and you’ve walked into a centrally controlled economy every bit as dictatorial and oppressive as anything the old Soviets dreamed up and you willingly give it all up to them. One difference, so far, they don’t kill you (yet) if you refuse to work there and instead of the party officials up beneffiting from graft and corruption it the CEO and inner circle of stockholders. Same show different actors. If Mussolini defines fascism as "the merger of corporate and government power" what does that make the Republican party?

Response:

However, I am not one to elevate other’s rights over the the rights of the majority simply because they are different, whether it be a different sexual orientation, disability, race, genetic makeup, etc. The whole point behind classic liberalism is NO SPECIAL PRIVILEGES. That means that the rich and powerful also don’t get to use the special privilege of being rich and powerful to abuse those less powerful either. What do you mean our nature as a society is to move in the same basic direction? Individualism counts for nothing? Are you suggesting that we conform like sheeple baaaa baaaaahaaaa? The fact is that the court’s job is to act as a check on the whim of the majority that can often act like a lynch mob.

Response:

Ker-FUKKIN-BLAMMO! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Left wing schming. I am so freakin sick of hearing that capital B U L L > S H I T. What the left wing is preachin? It’s what comon folk (not the > kind Bush was taling about in the debate) will tell you that Bush and > co are pure Corporatopolists. A slightler newer more industrial > strength facism combined with theocratically inclined fundamentalist > nutballs. So my next question is, if we intend to make like trees and > leave, where do we go from here, cause I ain’t stickin around to find > out what’ll happen after our friends Lord Valve and Kevin Singelton > turn us all in for their re-ward. They can’t wait, already counting > their change but by God if they come for me, I’m not goin down without > a fight. > Come on Ed- how much you worth anyway? If you aren’t pulling down 10 > million or more you aren’t close to playing with the big boys yanking > your chain. It’s just pathetic to hear you 50hr/6 day a week guys go on > about the left as if you HAVE something the left is gonna give away. > You ain’t got nothing. NADA Nothing that anybody is gonna take away > from you on the left. You walk into WalMart or Home Depot or Starbucks > (capitalized at How many billion dollars?) and you’ve walked into a > centrally controlled economy every bit as dictatorial and oppressive as > anything the old Soviets dreamed up and you willingly give it all up to > them. One difference, so far, they don’t kill you (yet) if you refuse > to work there and instead of the party officials up beneffiting from > graft and corruption it the CEO and inner circle of stockholders. Same > show different actors. > If Mussolini defines fascism as "the merger of corporate and government > power" what does that make the Republican party?

  LViswhitetrash.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

> Where do you get this nonsense?  3/4 of the decisions are not even

appealed. Over the past dozen years, annually between 68 and 95% of the 9th’s appealed decisions have been overturned by the SC, the average is over 73%, more than 12% higher than the combined average of all the other circuit courts.  The SC — liberal as well as conservative members — has decided that the 9th needs correcting out of proportion to the number of cases it hears, the 5th CC hears almost as many cases as the 9th, but is responsible for only 9% of the SC’s docket, while the 9th is responsible for a staggering 37%. Decisions by the 9th are *twice* as likely to result in a written decision by the SC as the next busiest court, the 5th. > The bottom line is that it is the job of the judicial branch to look out for the > rights of the minority, the unpopular.  The value of protecting the rights of > the minority is often missed by the majority, hence the common distorted view of > the Courts as being "looney-tunes" because they don’t follow the whim of the > majority.

The majority has nothing to do with it, decisions that fly in the face of common sense are the issue, ie. deciding the Pledge of Alliagence in unconstitutional because it mentions "God," nobody apparently ever having told the 9th that "God" is mentioned in quite a few documents central to U.S. law, Americans being endowed by their *creator* with certain inalienable rights and so on.  Do you suppose the 9th would decide the Bill of Rights is itself unconstitutional on that basis? > Courts interpret the law, and are supposed to do so ultimately based on the > Constitution, which protects the rights of the minority against the tyranny of > the majority (i.e.. people who think that Judges/Justices are just a bunch of > kooks and that decisions should really just follow the will of the majority). > Court decisions serve as precedent, thus they become "the law."  The one true > "law" for a judge at the federal appellate level is the Constitution, which > governs all other law.

Bull, we’re not talking about interpreting the law, we’re talking about the 9th being an activist court that tries to make new law even in the face of what the elected legislature acting on behalf of the people has written into law.  This is a court that buys the argument that gun manufacturers intentionally make more guns than are likely to be legally purchased which must mean they intend some of them to go to criminals.  This is a court that overturns a death sentence for someone convicted of multiple attempted murders and one successful murder because his lawyer failed to tell a lower court jury what a tough childhood the killer had.  This is a court that tries to intrude on U.S. foreign policy fer cryin’ out loud.  This court is overturned more than any other because it doesn’t know where to stop. > We sit at the crossroads.  If GW is reelected, he will fill the courts with > judges that WILL NOT protect the Constitutional rights of the minority. (Do NOT > mistake this for "minorities" in the racial sense.)  He will select candidates > that have a Christian/right agenda that is contrary to basic civil liberties. > The Courts are here to PROTECT us, not to tell us how to live our lives. Four > more years will mean rapidly eroding civil liberties.  The "Patriot Act" is just > the beginning.

Blah blah blah, just like Nixon was going to pack the court and just like Reagan was going to pack the court and just like Bush 1 was going to pack the court and we’d all be nazis by the turn of the century, and it didn’t happen then and it isn’t going to happen now.  I swear, there’s nothing you self-appointed liberal lemon-suckers like better than predicting gloom and doom, the nation survived Carter, it will survive Bush. Besides, the 9th is a bloated and inefficient court that subjects the tens of millions of people who are bound by its decisions to intolerable delays in litigation, and that suffers from administrative and judicial procedures that impede its functioning, it is, in short, a badly run court, it’s more than time it be reformed.

Response:

Flatulist pigs? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > If Mussolini defines fascism as "the merger of corporate and government > power" what does that make the Republican party?

  LVisaryantrash.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

> I’m not goin down without > a fight.

I’ve avoided saying it, before, but, you are an idiot. — Kevin -=#=- www.freerepublic.com

Response:

> The fact is that the court’s job is to act as a check on the whim of > the majority that can often act like a lynch mob.

You must be referring to the presidential election of 2000. — Kevin -=#=- www.freerepublic.com

Response:

> We sit at the crossroads.  If GW is reelected, he will fill the courts with > judges that WILL NOT protect the Constitutional rights of the minority.  (Do NOT > mistake this for "minorities" in the racial sense.)  He will select candidates > that have a Christian/right agenda that is contrary to basic civil liberties. > The Courts are here to PROTECT us, not to tell us how to live our lives.  Four > more years will mean rapidly eroding civil liberties.  The "Patriot Act" is just > the beginning.

Huh.  I’m a Christian, and somewhat to the right of center, at least on some issues.  Never realized I was your enemy. Lots of "us" don’t believe in trying to tell anyone how to live their lives. Lots of "us" aren’t any happier than you with civil liberty erosion, including a lot of the alleged Patriot act and its related shenanigans. —-== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com – Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==—- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups —= East/West-Coast Server Farms – Total Privacy via Encryption =—

Response:

> > We sit at the crossroads.  If GW is reelected, he will fill the courts with > judges that WILL NOT protect the Constitutional rights of the minority.  (Do NOT > mistake this for "minorities" in the racial sense.)  He will select candidates > that have a Christian/right agenda that is contrary to basic civil liberties. > The Courts are here to PROTECT us, not to tell us how to live our lives.  Four > more years will mean rapidly eroding civil liberties.  The "Patriot Act" is just > the beginning. > Huh.  I’m a Christian, and somewhat to > the right of center, at least on some > issues.  Never realized I was your enemy.

Who said you were? > Lots of "us" don’t believe in trying to > tell anyone how to live their lives. > Lots of "us" aren’t any happier than you > with civil liberty erosion, including a > lot of the alleged Patriot act and its > related shenanigans.

I never intended to give the impression that I have an opinion that all Christians would advance their theological beliefs in front of another’s civil liberties.  I know that all Christians are not like this.  I am not "very religious" by most standards, but I was raised in the Christian church and I still consider myself a Christian.  But, like Kerry, I could never legislate my religion or my morality.  I believe in a secular government and strict separation of church and State.

Response:

WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 /U.S. Newswire/ — More than 40 Christian leaders and 40,000 faithful citizens signed a petition declaring that "God is not a Republican…or a Democrat" and that the Religious Right does not speak for them. The petition refutes claims by Jerry Falwell that "Evangelical Christians…need to get serious about re-electing President Bush" and by Pat Robertson that "George Bush is going to win in walk…the Lord’s just blessing him." The petition calls for all Christians to take back their faith and appears as a full-page ad in Monday’s The New York Times, paid for by nearly 3,500 supporters of Sojourners, the national Christian magazine and organization that initiated the petition. The petition can be found at http://www.takebackourfaith.org These leaders of the Religious Right mistakenly claim that God has taken a side in this election, and that Christians should only vote for George W. Bush. We believe that claims of divine appointment for the President, uncritical affirmation of his policies, and assertions that all Christians must vote for his re-election constitute bad theology and dangerous religion. We believe that sincere Christians and other people of faith can choose to vote for President Bush or Senator Kerry – for reasons deeply rooted in their faith. We believe all candidates should be examined by measuring their policies against the complete range of Christian ethics and values. We will measure the candidates by whether they enhance human life, human dignity, and human rights; whether they strengthen family life and protect children; whether they promote racial reconciliation and support gender equality; whether they serve peace and social justice; and whether they advance the common good rather than only individual, national, and special interests. We are not single-issue voters. We believe that poverty – caring for the poor and vulnerable – is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ budget and tax policies reward the rich or show compassion for poor families? Do their foreign policies include fair trade and debt cancellation for the poorest countries? (Matthew 25:35-40, Isaiah 10:1-2) We believe that the environment – caring for God’s earth – is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ policies protect the creation or serve corporate interests that damage it? (Genesis 2:15, Psalm 24:1) We believe that war – and our call to be peacemakers – is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ policies pursue "wars of choice" or respect international law and cooperation in responding to real global threats? (Matthew 5:9) We believe that truth-telling is a religious issue. Do the candidates tell the truth in justifying war and in other foreign and domestic policies? (John 8:32) We believe that human rights – respecting the image of God in every person – is a religious issue. How do the candidates propose to change the attitudes and policies that led to the abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners? (Genesis 1:27) We believe that our response to terrorism is a religious issue. Do the candidates adopt the dangerous language of righteous empire in the war on terrorism and confuse the roles of God, church, and nation? Do the candidates see evil only in our enemies but never in our own policies? (Matthew 6:33, Proverbs 8:12-13 ) We believe that a consistent ethic of human life is a religious issue. Do the candidates’ positions on abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, weapons of mass destruction, HIV/AIDS-and other pandemics-and genocide around the world obey the biblical injunction to choose life? (Deuteronomy 30:19) We also admonish both parties and candidates to avoid the exploitation of religion or our congregations for partisan political purposes. This is the meaning of responsible Christian citizenship

Response:

he gets this nonsense from places like Phylis Schlafly http://www.townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/ps20040510.shtml one could even say he plagairized it from there but that would be silly. This is her latest book The Supremacists (how ironic) http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1890626554//townhallcom/104-88… brought to you by a lady who thought that women shouldn’t work and belonged at home.

Response:

Christian Principles in an Election Year Our Christian faith compels us to address the world through the lens of our relationship to God and to one another. Public discourse is enhanced as we engage civic leaders on the values and ethics affirmed by our faith. At the same time, religious liberty and the integrity of our democracy will be protected as candidates refrain from using faith-based organizations and institutions for partisan gain. We offer these ten principles to those seeking to accept the responsibility that comes with holding public office. 1. War is contrary to the will of God. While the use of violent force may, at times, be a necessity of last resort, Christ pronounces his blessing on the peacemakers. We look for political leaders who will make peace with justice a top priority and who will actively seek nonviolent solutions to conflict. 2. God calls us to live in communities shaped by peace and cooperation. We reject policies that abandon large segments of our inner city and rural populations to hopelessness. We look for political leaders who will re-build our communities and bring an end to the cycles of violence and killing. 3. God created us for each other, and thus our security depends on the well-being of our global neighbors. We look for political leaders for whom a foreign policy based on cooperation and global justice is an urgent concern. 4. God calls us to be advocates for those who are most vulnerable in our society. We look for political leaders who yearn for economic justice and who will seek to reduce the growing disparity between rich and poor. 5. Each human being is created in the image of God and is of infinite worth. We look for political leaders who actively promote racial justice and equal opportunity for everyone. 6. The earth belongs to God and is intrinsically good. We look for political leaders who recognize the earth’s goodness, champion environmental justice, and uphold our responsibility to be stewards of God’s creation. 7. Christians have a biblical mandate to welcome strangers. We look for political leaders who will pursue fair immigration policies and speak out against xenophobia. 8. Those who follow Christ are called to heal the sick. We look for political leaders who will support adequate, affordable and accessible health care for all. 9. Because of the transforming power of God’s grace, all humans are called to be in right relationship with each other. We look for political leaders who seek a restorative, not retributive, approach to the criminal justice system and the individuals within it. 10. Providing enriched learning environments for all of God’s children is a moral imperative. We look for political leaders who will advocate for equal educational opportunity and abundant funding for children’s services. Finally, our religious tradition admonishes us not to bear false witness against our neighbor and to love our enemies. We ask that the campaigns of political candidates and the coverage of the media in this election season be conducted according to principles of fairness, honesty and integrity. http://www.ncccusa.org/news/04christianprinciplesstory.html

Response:

Question:

>> George Bush can have whatever religious beliefs he wants.  I just don’t > want them enacted into law as they don’t conincide with my religious > beliefs. > So where have they been enacted into LAWS?  Help me out, here.

How about the "faith-based initiative" business with social services? While there is no technical barrier (that I know of) to other religions participating, in practice this is almost entirely Christian organizations. miguel — Hundreds of travel photos from around the world: http://travel.u.nu/

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >   Doesn’t Billy Graham or some other > minister preside at the Presidential swearing in? > Only if they are an invited guest, but they certainly don’t "preside" over > it.  Only the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court does that. >  Doesn’t the > President swear in on a bible? > Not mandatory, they have the option to if they want but don’t have to. > Ronald Regan, for instance, chose to use a copy of the constitution instead > of a babble. > Nothing religious in nature can be made mandatory either by, or for use by > the government. It’s simply not permitted. > Those who choose to follow any type of religious protocol, do so of their > own choosing.  If it were me, the babble would be nowhere near the white > house for any reason.

And the Constitution which does not mention Jesus Christ or God [and don't go on about the writing out of A.D. as if this was a religious statement] DOES specifically indicate that one may either ’swear’ or ‘affirm’ oaths [the affirm for those Christians who believe swearing is blasphemous as well as for those who do not embrace Christianity where such swearing is common]  and also specifically indicates that ‘no religous test’ will be used for holding office.  There were Jews in high office in the newly minted US government and as most know, many free thinkers.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > February 8, 2004 > American Airlines Pilot Plugs Christianity > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS > NEW YORK (AP) — An American Airlines pilot asked Christians on his > flight to identify themselves and suggested the non-Christians discuss > the faith with them, the airline said. > The case was handed over to the airline’s personnel department for an > investigation, spokesman Tim Wagner said Sunday. > “It falls along the lines of a personal level of sharing that may not > be appropriate for one of our employees to do while on the job,” he > said earlier. > American’s Flight 34 was headed from Los Angeles to New York’s John F. > Kennedy Airport on Friday when the pilot asked Christians on board to > raise their hands, Wagner said. > The pilot, whose name was not released, told the airline that he then > suggested the other passengers use the flight time to talk to the > Christians about their faith, Wagner said. > Passenger Amanda Nelligan told WCBS-TV of New York that the pilot > called non-Christians “crazy” and that his comments “felt like a > threat.” She said she and several others aboard were so worried they > tried to call relatives on their cell phones before flight attendants > assured them they were safe and that people on the ground had been > notified about the pilot’s comments. > The pilot also told passengers he would be available for discussion at > the end of the flight. Wagner said the pilot had just returned to work > from a weeklong mission trip to Costa Rica. > Because of privacy issues, there would likely never be any > announcement about what kind of punishment or reprimand the pilot may > face, Wagner said. The pilot was not scheduled to fly during the > weekend, he said.

Some of the passengers actually reached for the plane’s mobile phones.

Response:

> the  most unpleasant flights I have been on  – and it has happened > several times in my life — are those next to Christian proseletyzers — > who have you as a captive audience and want to quiz you on whether you > are ’saved’ whether you ‘know where you will be going after life’ yada > yada > these people are a rude  menace and very  hard to shut up politely — I > have found even when I answer yes to such questions, that they want to > natter on and on invading my psychic space at a time when there is no > place for me to go

Precisely why I never fly without my portable CD player.  Even if I don’t feel like listening to anything, I always put on my headsets if I am sitting right next to someone else.  I have been flying for business for over 14 years and I just don’t want to chitchat with people I’ll never see again.  I realize that there are occasions that I might be missing out or something but my "me" time is very important to me and I really enjoy that on my trips. Cassie

Response:

> > The "…many, many non-Christians"?  Oh, pulleeze. > You seem to be under the mistaken impression that America is a Christian > nation.

Matt, ??????? In the above quote you highlight, I was referring to those on the plane. Regarding your comment:  I think I mentioned a P.C. term: ‘a nation mostly made up of ‘believers’ of er, or _in_ er, a ‘Greater power’, ‘Omnipotent being’ or whatever form each individual has a belief in.    In simple P.C. terms, there are more believers in something, somehow, somewhere greater than us than not, in this country. (Disclaimer:  This is only MHO and not intended to offend, threaten, terrorize, horrify or affect anyone in any negative way no matter what or where you’re from.  It is NOT meant to be taken as gospel…OOPS! Sorry. Um, not meant to be taken as absolute truth.  It is only put out to clarify.  This is not making light of anything or anyone…etc.)

Response:

> >I’m sorry if I don’t pay much attention to polls and surveys > either as they can be easily slanted and to be honest, this country > has a silent majority. > I guess we’ll have to disagree about this one, too.

Fair enough. >  Or would it be more P.C. to say it’s a nation of ‘believers’ in general? > It depends on what you mean by "believers."  Acknowledgement of a supreme > being runs throughout US policy and administration.  There are almost > certainly more people in the US who believe in some kind of supreme power > than pure atheists, and among those who believe, there are probably many > more who believe in some form of Christianity than other religions.

Thank you for once more clarifying things.  I emphatically agree.   > I also can’t take the comment about Bush’s ‘particular and peculiar > interpretation of Christianity’ seriously either as he hasn’t said > enough to convince _me_ such an thing even exists, let alone used as > way to fix welfare to unemployment. > My reference was to Bush’s "faith-based" initiative, his push for prayer in > schools, his religion-based stance on abortion, his determination to spend > 1.5 billion dollars "promoting marriage" and the like.  

I fail to understand how prayer in school, promoting marriage, being against abortion etc. has to do with him using ‘his particular and peculiar interpretation of Christianity’  and fixing welfare and unemployment.  Can you be more specific on that issue leaving out the parts that are not related to your earlier comment? I know plenty of Christians — good, religious, church-going people Please, how do you define the above ‘good, church-going people’ so that I might better understand the point you are making?  – who resent Bush’s exploitation of their shared faith in this manner. I mostly want to know how this pertains to his using this ‘interpretation of Christianity’ to ‘fix’ unemployment and welfare. HOW does he do this? And how is the ’shared faith’ of these good people above being exploited?  If they basically ’share faith’ with him, then I take it to mean they have some things in common so they CAN be ’sharing’ that faith. > Nor can I.  I don’t have a problem with a politician following a religion. > My concern is when they make the particular tenants of that religion the > basis for public policy.

If I may be so bold again, can you clarify for me what are the offending tenants of his particular and peculiar beliefs that he has made public policy? And if I may also ask, doesn’t here have to SOME basic tenants of most religions across the board to make this world a safer place to be in? Isn’t the ten commandments the basis for most law in this country? Didn’t the forefathers have to look somewhere for finding the basis of laws to protect the populace from anarchy?  And I also would like to ask for my own education, IS there some similar versions of the basics of the ten commandments in other religions?  Things like not killing, not stealing, not lying, etc.?  And anyway, a lot of this was in motion long before Bush Jr. came to be.  So has the battle on school prayer, abortion, and a lot of other issues and I think the battle will continue back and forth in the future when he’s long gone. George Bush can have whatever religious beliefs he wants.  I just don’t want > them enacted into law as they don’t conincide with my religious beliefs.

So where have they been enacted into LAWS?  Help me out, here. This Bush bashing is so interesting, really.  For someone a lot of vocal people say is stupid, thick between the ears, can’t find his way home, etc., a lot is sure put at his doorstep. > Well, it all depends on what side of the fence you find yourself.  You call > it Bush bashing, I call it legitimate criticism of the President.  

Oh, hey, I’m not on any side of any fence.  I consider myself an independent. I have no problem with legitmate critism of the President’s job to date.  It’s our right in this country and I can jump in with the best of them.  There are points I think he could’ve done much better on for certain.  _I_ (not implying anyone else felt the same way) recall at the last election, it wasn’t like there was anyone really worthy running so most picked the lesser of two evils. No offense, but I don’t think from I see these days that there will be a much better selection to choose from this time.  It’s my feeling that Edwards is the only interesting thing in this lot of Dems, but I’m waiting for the candidates to quit bashing each other and Bush and start telling me why they think they should have my vote. Think about it–if he were as almighty at doing all these things he’s accused of, then he’s the cleverest bugger in history. Um, what things? Fair enough.  Well, for starters (and I truly don’t mean to keep harping on this) using his ‘particular and peculiar’ religious stance to make new laws (whatever those laws are) and solved the woe of unemployment and welfare (though I would be grateful if he HAD solved those issues in this country during his um, reign). > You’d think he has sole power to do > what he wants when he wants and no one else has anything to say. > I’m not convinced he has any say — an awful lot of what he’s done is the > responsibility of Chaney, Rumsfeld and the others who surround him.

Interesting thought.  The puppet theory.  I’d thought of that too–to a degree, but I know things are never black and white and there’s probably a whole lot of gray areas we will never know anything about. Perhaps they are in collusion, but I don’t think he’s exactly a puppet.  (BTW, totally off topic, but I really don’t like Rumsfield. He gets my goat for some odd reason) I have no argument with any of that.  Congress and the President share equal responsibility for the state of the nation. AMEN!  Er, sorry.  I meant, AGREED! > Well, I’d suggest the majority don’t agree, but that’s actually besides the > point.  The whole point of a constitutional government such as ours is to > protect against the tyranny of the majority.  Bringing the discussion back > to the issue which started this thread, even if the majority in this country > were evangelical Christians of Bush’s type

What exactly is his ‘type’?    (note: I deliberately avoidedusing the word "ilk")         I noted, thanks.  :>) the Constitution safeguards imposition of their beliefs on the non-evangelical minority. So what protects the majority then (regardless of their beliefs) from the will of the non-evangelical minority? Does this mean the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many?  Does this work?  I don’t think he (Bush) no matter how much you dislike him, or his staff, would encourage such a thing, especially not on an airplane and certainly not after 9/11. > I agree — Bush hasn’t said anything I can recall that expressly condones > what the pilot did.  However, "faith-based initiatives," prayer in schools, > declaring a "Jesus Christ Day" (as Bush did in Texas), etc. all contribute > to a climate which makes this kind of thing acceptable.

Ah!  My friend, we agree to disagree once more.  First off, it was NOT acceptable, okay? I live in Texas and my children attend Texas schools and I don’t recall a Jesus Christ day (besides Christmas and Easter), but if there was and all believers of Christ kept Him in their hearts specially that day, how does that offend others who no doubt keep the flame of _their_ beliefs in their hearts? And honestly, how does this whole topic relate to what the pilot did? How does it imply that because of this, Bush condones such a thing? You said above that he didn’t and I agree. Or does this Jesus Christ Day means that believers of Jesus can tell the student next to them about their belief?  Seriously, shouldn’t all have the right to believe or disbelieve as they will according to their own hearts? Exactly, and that’s why I think he should be fired — he showed incredibly poor judgment.   Absolutely. However, judgment issues notwithstanding, on a _personal_ level, I find his comments insulting and offensive. I respect your personl feelings.  You’re entitled and he _was_ way out of line. > I _do_ apologise if I sounded ballistic over the reaction to it. > On the contrary, you sound very reasonable.

So do you.  I have no problem with agreeing to disagree on some points and I appreciate you taking the time to type out your thoughts. I don’t fly well in the best of times > Nor do I.

:>)))  Extreme fanatacism isn’t a good thing no matter what method of worship  one has. > And on this we’re in total agreement.

Good.  Ending on a positive note.  Cheers! And thanks for the interesting new word: anachronism.  :>)

Response:

  Doesn’t Billy Graham or some other > minister preside at the Presidential swearing in?

Only if they are an invited guest, but they certainly don’t "preside" over it.  Only the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court does that.  Doesn’t the > President swear in on a bible?

Not mandatory, they have the option to if they want but don’t have to. Ronald Regan, for instance, chose to use a copy of the constitution instead of a babble. Nothing religious in nature can be made mandatory either by, or for use by the government. It’s simply not permitted. Those who choose to follow any type of religious protocol, do so of their own choosing.  If it were me, the babble would be nowhere near the white house for any reason.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > All those Moslem hi-jackers on board might find it necessary strongly >  to > > In addition to the many, many more innocent non-Christians on board >  who’re > > having a religion pushed on them against their will. Who’s the religious > > terrorists there? > The "…many, many non-Christians"?  Oh, pulleeze. Perhaps one ‘many’ > too much? :>)) > You do understand, do you not, how offensive the pilot’s remarks were to > non-Christians?  For that matter, those remarks were, no doubt, offensive to > many Christians, as well.

Thank you for clarifying that. >  There’s much more serious business to be addressed by your sharp minds in the world today. >     This pilot’s actions are a reflection of some of the serious issues facing > the world today, e.g. the present administration’s sad and mistaken > conviction that this is a "Christian" nation, and that Bush’s particular and > peculiar interpretation of Christianity is the solution to everything from > welfare to unemployment to alien and hostile totalitarian governments.

I agree to disagree that America in general isn’t a Christian nation. It is. I’m sorry if I don’t pay much attention to polls and surveys either as they can be easily slanted and to be honest, this country has a silent majority.  Or would it be more P.C. to say it’s a nation of ‘believers’ in general?  Doesn’t Billy Graham or some other minister preside at the Presidential swearing in?  Doesn’t the President swear in on a bible? I also can’t take the comment about Bush’s ‘particular and peculiar interpretation of Christianity’ seriously either as he hasn’t said enough to convince _me_ such an thing even exists, let alone used as way to fix welfare to unemployment.  But I suppose one can read anything into anything if they want to see it bad enough.  I think most all former Presidents (even Clinton!) have expressed their religious beliefs in one way or another, whether it’s being filmed going to church or thanking God in a speech or two.  Don’t recall one President who stood up and exclaimed he was an athiest or had no beliefs at all of any kind.  Personally, from my point of view, though I too don’t want to be pounded over the head by someone trying to convert me to their religious beliefs, particularly if I didn’t ask for them, I like a man who stands up for his convictions especially if he’s going to be my President.  He needn’t wear it on his sleeve, but he shouldn’t be ashamed of his beliefs either and if he did to court votes or favour, then I don’t want him in the White house.  I don’t care if he’s Christian, Jewish, New Age or something else. This Bush bashing is so interesting, really.  For someone a lot of vocal people say is stupid, thick between the ears, can’t find his way home, etc., a lot is sure put at his doorstep.  Think about it–if he were as almighty at doing all these things he’s accused of, then he’s the cleverest bugger in history.  You’d think he has sole power to do what he wants when he wants and no one else has anything to say. A kingdom!  However, I think if one wants to call the country to task about social climate, world and home decisions etc., then I think one needs to consider that Congress, the Senate, and the House of Representatives etc. have had a lot to do with what goes on in this country too.  You want change?  Change who sits on those seats too and make them as answerable (and accountable)for what they do or don’t do as you do the President.  It always comes back to politics somehow no matter who’s in the Whitehouse. :>) > What Bush has engineered is a social climate that has convinced the religous > right that assinine antics like those of this pilot are perfectly acceptable > and should be encouraged.  The rest of us don’t agree.

YOU don’t agree, and from my point of view, IF the above were true, then I would be with you but neither you nor I have the right to lump the ‘rest of us’ together. :>))    In all honesty, I don’t recall any comment from Bush or the Whitehouse that this man’s arrogance and bad taste is condoned and I don’t think he (Bush) no matter how much you dislike him, or his staff, would encourage such a thing, especially not on an airplane and certainly not after 9/11.  It’s not realistic unless you can confirm this with fact?  If you can, I’m most interested to read it. About this pilot though-I don’t think he did the right thing at all. His intentions may have been innocent, but he didn’t _THINK_ and after 9/11 I can imagine ALL the people were scared.  I _do_ apologise if I sounded ballistic over the reaction to it.  I don’t fly well in the best of times and yes, to be honest, anyone in charge of the plane saying what he did when he did would’ve unnerved me a good bit. Extreme fanatacism isn’t a good thing no matter what method of worship one has. CY

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > > All those Moslem hi-jackers on board might find it necessary strongly >  to > > > In addition to the many, many more innocent non-Christians on board >  who’re > > > having a religion pushed on them against their will. Who’s the religious > > > terrorists there? > > The "…many, many non-Christians"?  Oh, pulleeze. Perhaps one ‘many’ > > too much? :>)) > You do understand, do you not, how offensive the pilot’s remarks were to > non-Christians?  For that matter, those remarks were, no doubt, offensive to > many Christians, as well. > Thank you for clarifying that. >  There’s much more serious business to be addressed by your sharp minds in the world today. >     This pilot’s actions are a reflection of some of the serious issues facing > the world today, e.g. the present administration’s sad and mistaken > conviction that this is a "Christian" nation, and that Bush’s particular and > peculiar interpretation of Christianity is the solution to everything from > welfare to unemployment to alien and hostile totalitarian governments. > I agree to disagree that America in general isn’t a Christian nation. > It is.

The majority of the people in America may be Christian.  However, it is not a Christian nation.  We can, though, agree to disagree. >I’m sorry if I don’t pay much attention to polls and surveys > either as they can be easily slanted and to be honest, this country > has a silent majority.

I guess we’ll have to disagree about this one, too. >  Or would it be more P.C. to say it’s a nation > of ‘believers’ in general?

It depends on what you mean by "believers."  Acknowledgement of a supreme being runs throughout US policy and administration.  There are almost certainly more people in the US who believe in some kind of supreme power than pure atheists, and among those who believe, there are probably many more who believe in some form of Christianity than other religions. > Doesn’t Billy Graham or some other > minister preside at the Presidential swearing in?  Doesn’t the > President swear in on a bible?

Yes to both.  And they are anachronisms that are unsupported by either law or the Constitution. > I also can’t take the comment about Bush’s ‘particular and peculiar > interpretation of Christianity’ seriously either as he hasn’t said > enough to convince _me_ such an thing even exists, let alone used as > way to fix welfare to unemployment.

My reference was to Bush’s "faith-based" initiative, his push for prayer in schools, his religion-based stance on abortion, his determination to spend 1.5 billion dollars "promoting marriage" and the like.  I know plenty of Christians — good, religious, church-going people — who resent Bush’s exploitation of their shared faith in this manner. >  But I suppose one can read > anything into anything if they want to see it bad enough.  I think > most all former Presidents (even Clinton!) have expressed their > religious beliefs in one way or another, whether it’s being filmed > going to church or thanking God in a speech or two.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that.  My objection is to trying to give religion the force of law. >  Don’t recall one > President who stood up and exclaimed he was an athiest or had no > beliefs at all of any kind.

Nor can I.  I don’t have a problem with a politician following a religion. My concern is when they make the particular tenants of that religion the basis for public policy. > Personally, from my point of view, though > I too don’t want to be pounded over the head by someone trying to > convert me to their religious beliefs, particularly if I didn’t ask > for them, I like a man who stands up for his convictions especially if > he’s going to be my President.

Same here. > He needn’t wear it on his sleeve, but > he shouldn’t be ashamed of his beliefs either and if he did to court > votes or favour, then I don’t want him in the White house.

George Bush can have whatever religious beliefs he wants.  I just don’t want them enacted into law as they don’t conincide with my religious beliefs. >  I don’t > care if he’s Christian, Jewish, New Age or something else. > This Bush bashing is so interesting, really.  For someone a lot of > vocal people say is stupid, thick between the ears, can’t find his way > home, etc., a lot is sure put at his doorstep.

Well, it all depends on what side of the fence you find yourself.  You call it Bush bashing, I call it legitimate criticism of the President.  I don’t know the man, or enough about the man, to decide whether he’s stupid, evil, some combination of both, or neither.  I simply disregard with most of his policies. >  Think about it–if he > were as almighty at doing all these things he’s accused of, then he’s > the cleverest bugger in history.

Um, what things? > You’d think he has sole power to do > what he wants when he wants and no one else has anything to say.

I’m not convinced he has any say — an awful lot of what he’s done is the responsibility of Chaney, Rumsfeld and the others who surround him. > A > kingdom!  However, I think if one wants to call the country to task > about social climate, world and home decisions etc., then I think one > needs to consider that Congress, the Senate, and the House of > Representatives etc. have had a lot to do with what goes on in this > country too.  You want change?  Change who sits on those seats too and > make them as answerable (and accountable)for what they do or don’t do > as you do the President.

I have no argument with any of that.  Congress and the President share equal responsibility for the state of the nation. >  It always comes back to politics somehow no matter who’s in the > Whitehouse. :>) > > What Bush has engineered is a social climate that has convinced the religous > right that assinine antics like those of this pilot are perfectly acceptable > and should be encouraged.  The rest of us don’t agree. > YOU don’t agree,

Well, I’d suggest the majority don’t agree, but that’s actually besides the point.  The whole point of a constitutional government such as ours is to protect against the tyranny of the majority.  Bringing the discussion back to the issue which started this thread, even if the majority in this country were evangelical Christians of Bush’s type (note: I deliberately avoided using the word "ilk"), the Constitution safeguards imposition of their beliefs on the non-evangelical minority. > and from my point of view, IF the above were true, > then I would be with you but neither you nor I have the right to lump > the ‘rest of us’ together. :>))

Well, sure, though it appears that reaction to the pilot’s conduct has been overwhelmingly negative. >    In all honesty, I don’t recall any > comment from Bush or the Whitehouse that this man’s arrogance and bad > taste is condoned and I don’t think he (Bush) no matter how much you > dislike him, or his staff, would encourage such a thing, especially > not on an airplane and certainly not after 9/11.

I agree — Bush hasn’t said anything I can recall that expressly condones what the pilot did.  However, "faith-based initiatives," prayer in schools, declaring a "Jesus Christ Day" (as Bush did in Texas), etc. all contribute to a climate which makes this kind of thing acceptable. >  It’s not realistic > unless you can confirm this with fact?  If you can, I’m most > interested to read it. > About this pilot though-I don’t think he did the right thing at all. > His intentions may have been innocent, but he didn’t _THINK_ and after > 9/11 I can imagine ALL the people were scared.

Exactly, and that’s why I think he should be fired — he showed incredibly poor judgment.  However, judgment issues notwithstanding, on a _personal_ level, I find his comments insulting and offensive. > I _do_ apologise if I > sounded ballistic over the reaction to it.

On the contrary, you sound very reasonable. > I don’t fly well in the > best of times

Nor do I. > and yes, to be honest, anyone in charge of the plane > saying what he did when he did would’ve unnerved me a good bit. > Extreme fanatacism isn’t a good thing no matter what method of worship > one has.

And on this we’re in total agreement. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> CY

Response:

On thing this incident does show, and I hope americans realise this: there are extremists in every religion, and just because one religion has some extremists doesn’t mean that all who belong to that religion are extremists. And while in the bible belt, it is considered "normal" and tolerated to be so "religious", outside of that area, it isn’t considered normal/helthy and the term "extremist" can be applied.

Response:

> The "…many, many non-Christians"?  Oh, pulleeze.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that America is a Christian nation. — http://mattdrury.net/travel

Response:

> And while in the bible belt, it is considered "normal" and tolerated to be so > "religious"

No, it is not tolerated there. Bible thumpers would sure love for people to believe that, though. Strength through perception and all that. — http://mattdrury.net/travel

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > All those Moslem hi-jackers on board might find it necessary strongly to > In addition to the many, many more innocent non-Christians on board who’re > having a religion pushed on them against their will. Who’s the religious > terrorists there? > The "…many, many non-Christians"?  Oh, pulleeze. Perhaps one ‘many’ > too much? :>)) While we’re being dramatic here, let’s worry not only > about the (many, many)NON-Christians being brainwashed by the > Christian in the seat next to them during the flight and the MUslim’s, > but we can get even more paranoid here:  What about the ‘other’ > Christians within Christianity?  Would the Catholics be brainwashed by > the Mormon sitting next to them? Or would the Methodists be > brainwashed by the Jehovah’s Witnesses?  Would the Lutheran beside the > Episcopalian be terrified each of the other?  Of what they might SAY? > Boggles the mind!

the  most unpleasant flights I have been on  – and it has happened several times in my life — are those next to Christian proseletyzers — who have you as a captive audience and want to quiz you on whether you are ’saved’ whether you ‘know where you will be going after life’ yada yada these people are a rude  menace and very  hard to shut up politely — I have found even when I answer yes to such questions, that they want to natter on and on invading my psychic space at a time when there is no place for me to go but a pilot who takes on this proseletyzing role adds another dimension — the vision of a whack job on a personal mission who is also locked in the front of an airplane about to suspend me 30K feet over the terrain and who might be motivated to do something else irrational and I am a Christian and find this totally inappropriate —

Response:

>’s sad and mistaken >conviction that this is a "Christian" nation

hear, hear, Paul. I got into a debate on this a few months ago and found some data that helps clarify in case you need it… www.thearda.com has reports available by geography www.glenmary.org has the methodology You need to make some 2-3% adjustments to the raw data but the US comes out about 48-50% Christian, 2-3% other religions and about 48-50% not religious enough to be claimed by any religious body. SF Bay area scores around 36% Christian, 4% other religions and 60% unclaimed.

Response:

> You need to make some 2-3% adjustments to the raw data but the US > comes out about 48-50% Christian, 2-3% other religions and about > 48-50% not religious enough to be claimed by any religious body.

Problem is that at the time the USA was founded (along with other former british colonies), it was assumed to be a christian nation, and the whole "separation of church" was really to prevent the christian church from meddling with the government and vice-versa. The founders had no concepts of conflicts that would occur a few centuries later when totally differtent religions would start to appear on their land. And so far, it hadn’t had much impact because other religions such as mormons, scientology, jeovah’s witnesses didn’t stand out in crowds and force a change to the way other people lived. But Muslims and Shiks do stand out because they still live/dress as per their old country’s culture. In a way, the French law has one benefit: from now on, only immigrants willing to adapt to the french culture will want to immigrate to France. Those who insist on continuing to live as they do in their native country won’t go to france.  (Had that law been passed 20 years ago, it may have been much easier to pass since there would have been so few "different" immigrants at that time).

Response:

> > All those Moslem hi-jackers on board might find it necessary strongly to > In addition to the many, many more innocent non-Christians on board who’re > having a religion pushed on them against their will. Who’s the religious > terrorists there? > The "…many, many non-Christians"?  Oh, pulleeze. Perhaps one ‘many’ > too much? :>))

You do understand, do you not, how offensive the pilot’s remarks were to non-Christians?  For that matter, those remarks were, no doubt, offensive to many Christians, as well. >While we’re being dramatic here, let’s worry not only > about the (many, many)NON-Christians being brainwashed by the > Christian in the seat next to them during the flight and the MUslim’s, > but we can get even more paranoid here:  What about the ‘other’ > Christians within Christianity?  Would the Catholics be brainwashed by > the Mormon sitting next to them? Or would the Methodists be > brainwashed by the Jehovah’s Witnesses?  Would the Lutheran beside the > Episcopalian be terrified each of the other?  Of what they might SAY? > Boggles the mind! > On a serious note, the man’s choice of venue was a certainly odd for > his announcement, but so what?

So what?  The pilot’s announcement was rude, exclusionary and offensive. His choice of venue wasn’t "odd," it was completely inappropriate and raises very serious questions about the pilot’s judgment. >Get over it, people.  Why so much > energy and thoughts being wasted on such a non-issue?

Because it isn’t a non-issue.  You need to get over that. >  There’s much > more serious business to be addressed by your sharp minds in the world > today.

This pilot’s actions are a reflection of some of the serious issues facing the world today, e.g. the present administration’s sad and mistaken conviction that this is a "Christian" nation, and that Bush’s particular and peculiar interpretation of Christianity is the solution to everything from welfare to unemployment to alien and hostile totalitarian governments. > As for anyone who wanted to sue over such BS–get a life, man.

Well, it all depends on what happened on board, doesn’t it?  If, as has been reported, it is true that passengers felt their safety was threatened and the plane was in control of some terrorist religious fanatic, then it is far from B.S. — being put in fear for your life isn’t B.S. > No one > gets nothing for nothing.  Now I want to see how long it takes for > someone to bring in ‘Shrub & Co.’ as he’s so fondly referred to here > into this thread and say he engineered this too to get attention off > his back.  It always comes back to politics somehow no matter who’s in > the Whitehouse. :>)

What Bush has engineered is a social climate that has convinced the religous right that assinine antics like those of this pilot are perfectly acceptable and should be encouraged.  The rest of us don’t agree. Follow whatever religion you like, but stay out of my face.  I don’t want to hear it, particularly when I’m a captive audience and have paid for the privilege. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> CY

Response:

> > All those Moslem hi-jackers on board might find it necessary strongly to > In addition to the many, many more innocent non-Christians on board who’re > having a religion pushed on them against their will. Who’s the religious > terrorists there?

The "…many, many non-Christians"?  Oh, pulleeze. Perhaps one ‘many’ too much? :>)) While we’re being dramatic here, let’s worry not only about the (many, many)NON-Christians being brainwashed by the Christian in the seat next to them during the flight and the MUslim’s, but we can get even more paranoid here:  What about the ‘other’ Christians within Christianity?  Would the Catholics be brainwashed by the Mormon sitting next to them? Or would the Methodists be brainwashed by the Jehovah’s Witnesses?  Would the Lutheran beside the Episcopalian be terrified each of the other?  Of what they might SAY? Boggles the mind! On a serious note, the man’s choice of venue was a certainly odd for his announcement, but so what?  Get over it, people.  Why so much energy and thoughts being wasted on such a non-issue?  There’s much more serious business to be addressed by your sharp minds in the world today. As for anyone who wanted to sue over such BS–get a life, man.  No one gets nothing for nothing.  Now I want to see how long it takes for someone to bring in ‘Shrub & Co.’ as he’s so fondly referred to here into this thread and say he engineered this too to get attention off his back.  It always comes back to politics somehow no matter who’s in the Whitehouse. :>) CY

Response:

> February 8, 2004 > American Airlines Pilot Plugs Christianity > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS > NEW YORK (AP) — An American Airlines pilot asked Christians on his > flight to identify themselves and suggested the non-Christians discuss > the faith with them, the airline said.

<snip> Old news… — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

> “It falls along the lines of a personal level of sharing that may not > be appropriate for one of our employees to do while on the job,” he

*May* not? What doubletalk. It doesn’t come close to being appropriate. Gotta love those captive audiences, though. What a fine way to add honor to one’s religion. Oy. — http://mattdrury.net/travel

Response:

> “It falls along the lines of a personal level of sharing that may not > be appropriate for one of our employees to do while on the job,” he > *May* not? What doubletalk. It doesn’t come close to being appropriate. > Gotta love those captive audiences, though. What a fine way to add honor to > one’s religion. Oy.

All those Moslem hi-jackers on board might find it necessary strongly to object.

Response:

> All those Moslem hi-jackers on board might find it necessary strongly to

In addition to the many, many more innocent non-Christians on board who’re having a religion pushed on them against their will. Who’s the religious terrorists there? — http://mattdrury.net/travel

Response:

> Who’s the religious terrorists there?

Imagine the lawsuits! And, frankly, if I were on the jury American would be shelling out a ton of $$$. I would have no trouble believing anyone who feared for their lives for the entire flight, and that they had been hijacked by a religious fanatic.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> All those Moslem hi-jackers on board might find it necessary strongly to > In addition to the many, many more innocent non-Christians on board who’re > having a religion pushed on them against their will. Who’s the religious > terrorists there? > — > http://mattdrury.net/travel

Response:

> All those Moslem hi-jackers on board might find it necessary strongly to > In addition to the many, many more innocent non-Christians on board who’re > having a religion pushed on them against their will. Who’s the religious > terrorists there?

Got to keep it in proportion though. If the worst sin the evangelists perpetrate is preaching at me I think I’ve got off lightly. Christian fundamentalism wasn’t always that benign.

Response:

> Christian fundamentalism wasn’t always that benign.

True, but I prefer not to encourage boorish behavior by inaction. They may get the idea that it’s okay to do that or something worse the next time. — http://mattdrury.net/travel

Response:

February 8, 2004 American Airlines Pilot Plugs Christianity By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS NEW YORK (AP) — An American Airlines pilot asked Christians on his flight to identify themselves and suggested the non-Christians discuss the faith with them, the airline said. The case was handed over to the airline’s personnel department for an investigation, spokesman Tim Wagner said Sunday. “It falls along the lines of a personal level of sharing that may not be appropriate for one of our employees to do while on the job,” he said earlier. American’s Flight 34 was headed from Los Angeles to New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport on Friday when the pilot asked Christians on board to raise their hands, Wagner said. The pilot, whose name was not released, told the airline that he then suggested the other passengers use the flight time to talk to the Christians about their faith, Wagner said. Passenger Amanda Nelligan told WCBS-TV of New York that the pilot called non-Christians “crazy” and that his comments “felt like a threat.” She said she and several others aboard were so worried they tried to call relatives on their cell phones before flight attendants assured them they were safe and that people on the ground had been notified about the pilot’s comments. The pilot also told passengers he would be available for discussion at the end of the flight. Wagner said the pilot had just returned to work from a weeklong mission trip to Costa Rica. Because of privacy issues, there would likely never be any announcement about what kind of punishment or reprimand the pilot may face, Wagner said. The pilot was not scheduled to fly during the weekend, he said.

Response:

Question:

        Ferror Fenton does a much better job of translating this than does the King James, as he relates this verse in this way:        

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Eaten missionary’s family head for Fiji > The residents of a Fiji village are preparing to apologise to the family of > a English Christian missionary who was eaten by tribes people 136 years > ago. > Cows, fine mats and 30 sperm whales’ teeth are to be presented to Thomas > Baker’s descendants in the traditional ceremony on Thursday. > The inhabitants of Navatusila on the island of Viti Levu believe their > village has been suffering bad luck ever since the cannibalism incident, > and hope saying sorry will help their fortunes. > There are various stories as to why Thomas Baker was killed and cooked by > the people of Navatusila on 21 July, 1867. Some say that he tried to take a > comb out of the village chief’s hair, or a hat from his head, without > realising that touching a chief’s head in Fiji is forbidden.

Yet "others" say he shouldn’t have conducted wedding ceremonies using the phrase "You must love and trust one another like two cannibals having a 69-er".

Response:

   The late Idi Amin to the head of the U.N. "Send me more of those U.N. troops. The last batch wuz delicious". There are still places in this world where cannibalism is practiced. Like Papua New Guinea for a start. Hear about the cannibal that passed his brother in the jungle? F.J.

Response:

> The late Idi Amin to the head of the U.N. "Send me more of those U.N. > troops. The last batch wuz delicious".

As far as I can recall, no UN troops were sent to Uganda during Amin’s tenure as president.  In fact, precious few UN troops were sent to Rwanda during the 1993 massacres.  Too few to be able to prevent the slaughter.  

Response:

> This reminds me of an old logic problem. > We have three cannibals and three missionaries.  If at any time > or place there are more cannibals than missionaries, then the > cannibals will eat the missionaries. > The group comes to a river which they must cross by boat. > However, the boat will only carry two people.  How do they all > six get across? > You might first reason that…

Jeez. I hope whoever crossposted this is pleased with himself. <CTRL-K> — timbo I learned a long time ago to keep on walking down the hall until the gurgling noises stop. Otherwise, your nice clean scrubs are going to get fucked up. – Mortimer Schnerd, RN

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Eaten missionary’s family head for Fiji > The residents of a Fiji village are preparing to apologise to > the > family of a English Christian missionary who was eaten by > tribes > people 136 years ago. > This reminds me of an old logic problem. > We have three cannibals and three missionaries.  If at any time > or place there are more cannibals than missionaries, then the > cannibals will eat the missionaries. > The group comes to a river which they must cross by boat. > However, the boat will only carry two people.  How do they all > six get across? > You might first reason that a missionary and a cannibal can cross > together, then leaving the cannibal on the other side the > missionary can come back and pick up either another cannibal or a > missionary.  But he can’t pick up a missionary because that will > leave two cannibals with one missionary.  And  if he takes a > cannibal with him, he will be eaten as soon as he gets to the > other side. > How can all six safely cross the river? > In an alternate version of this problem, instead of saying that > there can never be more cannibals than missionaries, I say that > there can never be more missionaries than cannibals, or the > missionaries will convert the cannibals which is an even worse > outcome.

===>Do they turn into beef when "converted", so the missionaries can eat them???

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->| Eaten missionary’s family head for Fiji >| >| The residents of a Fiji village are preparing to apologise to the family >of >| a English Christian missionary who was eaten by tribes people 136 years >| ago. >| Cows, fine mats and 30 sperm whales’ teeth are to be presented to Thomas >| Baker’s descendants in the traditional ceremony on Thursday. >[snip] >why the hell should they apologise?  for one, it was their culture at the >time, and as natural to them as eating steak is to us.  for two, he deserved >it for going there and meddling with them. >         Man, I’ve really developed quite an appetite!  Hey!  Got any > plans this evening?

It is somewhat suspicious considering they ordered some hundred pounds of fava beans and several cases of Chianti. I guess this is on topic.

Response:

Wait! First, find out if they’re Democrats.                                 –Blair                                   "We may have a job for them in Washington."

Response:

>> The residents of a Fiji village are preparing to apologise to the family > of a English Christian missionary who was eaten by tribes people 136 > years ago. Cows, fine mats and 30 sperm whales’ teeth are to be presented > to Thomas Baker’s descendants in the traditional ceremony on Thursday. > ===>Was he a Franciscan and they boiled him? > THAT was the mistake. > A Franciscan is a FRIAR!

That’s the kind of joke you can go a whole lifetime waiting for the opportunity to use. miguel — See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/

Response:

> ===>Was he a Franciscan and they boiled him? > THAT was the mistake. > A Franciscan is a FRIAR!

  They will never ever eat a clown again.  They taste funny dennis

Response:

I hope they’re careful where they take the whale’s teeth.  In the US, at least, they could get in some, er…hot water.

Response:

> Eaten missionary’s family head for Fiji

Bon Appetit!

Response:

> Eaten missionary’s family head for Fiji > The residents of a Fiji village are preparing to apologise to the > family of a English Christian missionary who was eaten by tribes > people 136 years ago.

This reminds me of an old logic problem. We have three cannibals and three missionaries.  If at any time or place there are more cannibals than missionaries, then the cannibals will eat the missionaries. The group comes to a river which they must cross by boat. However, the boat will only carry two people.  How do they all six get across? You might first reason that a missionary and a cannibal can cross together, then leaving the cannibal on the other side the missionary can come back and pick up either another cannibal or a missionary.  But he can’t pick up a missionary because that will leave two cannibals with one missionary.  And  if he takes a cannibal with him, he will be eaten as soon as he gets to the other side. How can all six safely cross the river? In an alternate version of this problem, instead of saying that there can never be more cannibals than missionaries, I say that there can never be more missionaries than cannibals, or the missionaries will convert the cannibals which is an even worse outcome. — Wax

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Eaten missionary’s family head for Fiji > The residents of a Fiji village are preparing to apologise to the family of > a English Christian missionary who was eaten by tribes people 136 years > ago. > Cows, fine mats and 30 sperm whales’ teeth are to be presented to Thomas > Baker’s descendants in the traditional ceremony on Thursday. > The inhabitants of Navatusila on the island of Viti Levu believe their > village has been suffering bad luck ever since the cannibalism incident, > and hope saying sorry will help their fortunes. > There are various stories as to why Thomas Baker was killed and cooked by > the people of Navatusila on 21 July, 1867. Some say that he tried to take a > comb out of the village chief’s hair, or a hat from his head, without > realising that touching a chief’s head in Fiji is forbidden. ><snip> > One villager who took part in the feast was quoted in contemporary accounts > as saying "we ate everything but his boots". > Yes, yes, but how did you prepare him?

===>He should have read the Prime Directive.

Response:

> Eaten missionary’s family head for Fiji > The residents of a Fiji village are preparing to apologise to the family of > a English Christian missionary who was eaten by tribes people 136 years > ago. > Cows, fine mats and 30 sperm whales’ teeth are to be presented to Thomas > Baker’s descendants in the traditional ceremony on Thursday. > The inhabitants of Navatusila on the island of Viti Levu believe their > village has been suffering bad luck ever since the cannibalism incident, > and hope saying sorry will help their fortunes. > There are various stories as to why Thomas Baker was killed and cooked by > the people of Navatusila on 21 July, 1867.

===>Was he a Franciscan and they boiled him? THAT was the mistake. A Franciscan is a FRIAR!

Response:

| Eaten missionary’s family head for Fiji | | The residents of a Fiji village are preparing to apologise to the family of | a English Christian missionary who was eaten by tribes people 136 years | ago. | Cows, fine mats and 30 sperm whales’ teeth are to be presented to Thomas | Baker’s descendants in the traditional ceremony on Thursday. [snip] why the hell should they apologise?  for one, it was their culture at the time, and as natural to them as eating steak is to us.  for two, he deserved it for going there and meddling with them.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Eaten missionary’s family head for Fiji > The residents of a Fiji village are preparing to apologise to the family of > a English Christian missionary who was eaten by tribes people 136 years > ago. > Cows, fine mats and 30 sperm whales’ teeth are to be presented to Thomas > Baker’s descendants in the traditional ceremony on Thursday. > The inhabitants of Navatusila on the island of Viti Levu believe their > village has been suffering bad luck ever since the cannibalism incident, > and hope saying sorry will help their fortunes. > There are various stories as to why Thomas Baker was killed and cooked by > the people of Navatusila on 21 July, 1867. Some say that he tried to take a > comb out of the village chief’s hair, or a hat from his head, without > realising that touching a chief’s head in Fiji is forbidden. ><snip> > One villager who took part in the feast was quoted in contemporary accounts > as saying "we ate everything but his boots".

Yes, yes, but how did you prepare him? Peg

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >| Eaten missionary’s family head for Fiji >| >| The residents of a Fiji village are preparing to apologise to the family >of >| a English Christian missionary who was eaten by tribes people 136 years >| ago. >| Cows, fine mats and 30 sperm whales’ teeth are to be presented to Thomas >| Baker’s descendants in the traditional ceremony on Thursday. >[snip] >why the hell should they apologise?  for one, it was their culture at the >time, and as natural to them as eating steak is to us.  for two, he deserved >it for going there and meddling with them.

        Man, I’ve really developed quite an appetite!  Hey!  Got any plans this evening?

Response:

> Eaten missionary’s family head for Fiji > The residents of a Fiji village are preparing to apologise to the family of > a English Christian missionary who was eaten by tribes people 136 years > ago.

Why rec.travel.air?

Response:

> Eaten missionary’s family head for Fiji > The residents of a Fiji village are preparing to apologise to the family of > a English Christian missionary who was eaten by tribes people 136 years > ago. > Cows, fine mats and 30 sperm whales’ teeth are to be presented to Thomas > Baker’s descendants in the traditional ceremony on Thursday. > Thomas Baker’s great-great-great-grandson, Dennis Russell, a miner from > Brisbane, and 10 other family members plan to travel to Navatusila for the > ceremony.

It’s a trap. The Fijians are hungry. Harry C.

Response:

Eaten missionary’s family head for Fiji The residents of a Fiji village are preparing to apologise to the family of a English Christian missionary who was eaten by tribes people 136 years ago. Cows, fine mats and 30 sperm whales’ teeth are to be presented to Thomas Baker’s descendants in the traditional ceremony on Thursday. The inhabitants of Navatusila on the island of Viti Levu believe their village has been suffering bad luck ever since the cannibalism incident, and hope saying sorry will help their fortunes. There are various stories as to why Thomas Baker was killed and cooked by the people of Navatusila on 21 July, 1867. Some say that he tried to take a comb out of the village chief’s hair, or a hat from his head, without realising that touching a chief’s head in Fiji is forbidden. We believe we must have been cursed, and we must apologise for what happened… When we have made the apology we will be clean again Filimoni Nawawabalevu, chief of Navatusila But others say that a wider power-struggle between different chiefs was to blame. Thomas Baker’s great-great-great-grandson, Dennis Russell, a miner from Brisbane, and 10 other family members plan to travel to Navatusila for the ceremony. It will take them five hours by four-wheel drive to get there, and the final 3 or 4 kilometres of a makeshift road have reportedly only been bulldozed in the last few days. According to the French news agency AFP, the ceremony will begin with a Christian church service and will be followed by an apology to the family of Thomas Baker, and also to the paramount chief of the neighbouring district who represents the Fijians killed in the incident. Fiji’s Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase, is expected to attend. We are facing so many hardships," Ratu, or chief, Filimoni Nawawabalevu told AFP. "We believe we must have been cursed, and we must apologise for what happened… When we have made the apology we will be clean again," he said. One villager who took part in the feast was quoted in contemporary accounts as saying "we ate everything but his boots". One of his boots is reportedly on display in the Fiji Museum. Reverend Baker is one of the few recorded examples of a Westerner falling victim to Fiji cannibals. Cannibalism died out in Fiji in the mid-19th century with the end of warring and the acceptance of Christianity. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3263163.stm

Response: